Talk:Pulsed radiofrequency

Please be kind to this page, it is a work in progress, i am putting it up such that others involved may see it. Shold be complete in about a week Jlarsgard (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I have changed the language of this article to plain english such that people can read about a treatment without knowing the steps of RNA transcription and NMDA receptors, when i get time i wish to expand this article, if anyone else wants to make changes please do so, the only thing i ask is that it is kept in plain English such that the public and potential patients can grasp what this treatment is about. Jlarsgard (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken this basic information directly from my medical knowledge, due to the fact that it is difficult to find easily comprehensible information about Radiofrequency, there was a rather important conference at Nottwill in Switzerland in 2005 which explained it well, however the rights to those transcripts i believe are not public. Perhaps somone could contact Notwill in Switzerland and get a confirmation or expansion of my definintion of Pulsed Radiofrequency.

still working on it, could use help in finding citations, though, one example a citation is requested where I state that local anesthetics cannot be used dueing the procedure is self evident. With the area of the nerve anesthetized it cannot be localized easily

84.208.103.93 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article
From attribution needed tag 84.208.103.93 (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * verifying this this would be difficult, i have spoken to several doctors at the hosp. and med school. and this statement is based on that. Beyond this perhaps there are some other doctors willing to offer their opinion on wikipedia Otherwise one would need to go out and do a survey of general practitioners to get that data, my statement is based on personal conversations i.e. at the medical school&hospital

Please do not put comments into the main body of the article without hiding them. Also that is exactly what is needed for that sentence. A wide-scale survey, from an independent and reliable source. ARended Winter 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there has been no study which aims at finding out how many doctors beleive in its efficacy and those who have less faith. Nevertheless, with mainstream medical procedures there are some that are universally accepted without very much discussion such as CPR (cardiopulmonary resusitation) while it too has squabbles about compression/ventilation, duration, etc everyone accept that it is of benefit. However, with pulsed radiofrequency it does have its detractors who believe that a lot its benefit is placebo. This is common with the majority of medical treatments, different doctors trust in different treatments. Still, I believe that it is important to inform that not all have such great faith in this particular treatment, for the sake of providing as accurate information to the public as possible.

JKL 84.208.103.93 (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re earlier comment, there have been RCT`s that show pulsed radiofrequency effective at relieving pain however, there are still those practitioners who do not subscribe to it.

JKL 84.208.103.93 (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can only provide accurate information if it can be sourced. ARended Winter 06:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, are you kidding me? CPR has been around since 1740.  It's been discussed to death pretty much.  Yes, it is fine to inform of the fact that not all regard this technique as the best, but this is an encyclopaedia, and I mentioned above, everything must be verified.  ARended Winter 06:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)