Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 27;14(7):e079173.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079173.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation versus placebo for chronic and moderate to severe low back pain: study protocol for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial

Affiliations

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation versus placebo for chronic and moderate to severe low back pain: study protocol for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial

Kate E Ashton et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading global cause of disability. Patients with moderate to severe LBP who respond positively to a diagnostic medial nerve branch block can be offered radiofrequency denervation (RFD). However, high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of RFD is lacking.

Methods and analysis: RADICAL (RADIofrequenCy denervAtion for Low back pain) is a double-blind, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 250 adults listed for RFD will be recruited from approximately 20 National Health Service (NHS) pain and spinal clinics. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 12-month internal pilot phase. Participants will be randomised in theatre using a 1:1 allocation ratio to RFD or placebo. RFD technique will follow best practice guidelines developed for the trial. Placebo RFD will follow the same protocol, but the electrode tip temperature will not be raised. Participants who do not experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain 3 months after randomisation will be offered the alternative intervention to the one provided at the outset without disclosing the original allocation. The primary clinical outcome will be pain severity, measured using a pain Numeric Rating Scale, at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 2 years after randomisation and include disability, health-related quality of life, psychological distress, time to pain recovery, satisfaction, adverse events, work outcomes and healthcare utilisation. The primary statistical analyses will be by intention to treat and will follow a prespecified analysis plan. The primary economic evaluation will take an NHS and social services perspective and estimate the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net benefit of RFD over the 2-year follow-up period.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the London-Fulham Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0471). Results will be disseminated in open-access publications and plain language summaries.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN16473239.

Keywords: Back pain; Chronic Pain; Clinical Trial; Pain management; Quality of Life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors received support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for the project associated with this manuscript, which was paid to their employing institution. No other conflicts were reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trial schema. EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension five-level questionnaire; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; RFD, radiofrequency denervation.

Similar articles

References

    1. The Lancet Rheumatology The global epidemic of low back pain. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5:e305. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00133-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parson S, Ingram M, Clarke-Cornwell A, et al. A heavy burden: the occurrence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions in the United Kingdom today. Arthritis research UK epidemiology unit. 2011. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:123774 Available.
    1. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391:2356–67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-50. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. MacNeela P, Doyle C, O’Gorman D, et al. Experiences of chronic low back pain: a meta-ethnography of qualitative research. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9:63–82. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2013.840951. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources