A Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Combined with Pulsed Radiofrequency in Preventing Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial [Letter]

Efficacy and Safety of IntravenousLidocaine Infusion Combined with Pulsed Radiofrequency in Preventing Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial" published in your esteemed journal. 1 The author states through VAS score, PSQI score, IL-6 and Gal-3 levels, pregabalin dosage, adverse reactions the data analysis on the incidence of PHN confirmed that lidocaine intravenous infusion combined with pulsed radiofrequency is an effective method for preventing postherpetic neuralgia.Compared with simple pulsed radiofrequency therapy, it can significantly reduce the incidence of PHN, provide more lasting pain relief for acute herpes zoster patients, reduce the dosage of analgesic drugs, improve patients' sleep disorders, and have good safety.However, several reference and outcome measure consistency issues merit further discussion to enhance the reliability and clinical applicability of the study results.First, the dose of pregabalin in the two groups was significantly reduced (P < 0.05), P-value of same group is not listed in Table 3.Compared with group C, P group of patients in March, June, and 12 months after treatment of the pregabalin dose were significantly lower (P < 0.05),while the number of users of pregabalin 12 months after treatment is only one less than that of 6 months after treatment with pregabalin dose.In addition, the data in Table 3 only shows that the differences in the number of people using different doses of pregabalin.How is the difference in dosage of pregabalin calculated?The issue may mislead readers with the result, particularly clinical practitioners who choose pregabalin dose after treatment.Similarly, after treatment, the plasma IL-6 and Gal-3 indexes of the two groups were significantly decreased (P < 0.05).P-value of same group is not listed in Table 4.Second, the vertical axis identification in Figure 1 is incorrect.In the abstract of results, it is stated that "the incidence of PHN in group P decreased by 18.2%.",but in the section on occurrences of PHN, it is explicitly described that "an effective rate", the data of effective rate is shown in Figure 1.The vertical axis should be changed to the effective rate of PHN.Third, the description of adverse reactions is contradictory.In the abstract of results, it is stated that "No adverse reactions occurred in the two groups after treatment", but in the section on adverse reactions, it is explicitly described that "one female patient in group P experienced hypotension after receiving lidocaine infusion, and recovered after adjusting the infusion rate".These two statements are completely contradictory and directly affect readers' judgment of safety and the credibility of the data.