Trial reportJournal of pain research2025
Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Pharmacopuncture Therapy for Cervical Disc Herniation: A Pilot Study.
Trial report in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cervical disc herniation (CDH) is increasingly prevalent, highlighting the need for more effective treatments. Although pharmacopuncture therapy is one of the most widely used treatment methods for CDH in Korean medicine clinical practice, there are few high-quality studies conducted in Korea. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacopuncture therapy for CDH through a pragmatic clinical trial that reflects clinical practice while utilizing well-designed study settings of a randomized controlled trial. Patients and Methods: This three-armed, pragmatic, pilot, randomized controlled trial included pharmacopuncture (Phm-Acu), acupuncture (Acu), and usual care (UC) groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants were treated twice a week for 6 weeks, with follow-up extending to week 25. The primary outcome was the neck pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes were arm pain NRS, neck and arm pain Visual Analog Scale, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Northwick Park Questionnaire (NPQ), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), and EuroQol-5-dimension-5-level (EQ-5D-5L). Results: Eighty participants (Phm-Acu: 29, Acu: 29, and UC: 26) were selected. At week 7, neck pain NRS significantly decreased in the Phm-Acu group than that in the UC (2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87-3.59) and Acu groups (1.68, 95% CI 0.84-2.53). Survival analysis revealed that the Phm-Acu group showed the fastest recovery rate. The Phm-Acu group showed significant improvement compared with the Acu and UC groups for all other pain outcomes and PGIC and compared with the UC group for NDI, NPQ, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-12 [physical]. The area under the curve analysis showed that the Phm-Acu group showed significant differences in all outcomes except SF-12 [mental] compared with the UC group. No serious adverse events occurred; four patients experienced mild adverse events. Conclusion: In CDH, pharmacopuncture was more effective in reducing pain and achieving functional recovery than acupuncture and usual care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.