Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Pain in Parkinson's disease (PD) represents a complex phenotype known to decrease quality of life. This pragmatic randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of pharmacopuncture (PA) for improving pain symptoms and investigated the corresponding therapeutic mechanisms in patients with PD. Ninety patients with PD-related pain were randomly allocated to receive either PA, manual acupuncture, or usual care in a 1:1:1 ratio; sixty healthy controls were included for comparative analysis of brain imaging data. Over 12 weeks, study treatment provided 2 days per week for 8 weeks with a follow-up period of 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the King's Parkinson's Disease Pain Scale score for assessing improvement in PD-related pain, including a sub-analysis to investigate the pattern of changes in pain according to a PD-related pain mechanism-based classification. Secondary outcome measures included a numerical rating scale-based assessment of the intensity and location of pain and changes in pain-associated symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Exploratory outcome measures included structural and functional brain patterns on magnetic resonance imaging, blood molecular signature changes, gait analysis, facial expression and movement assessment in response to emotional stimuli, and a traditional Korean medicine syndrome differentiation questionnaire. The trial findings provided important clinical evidence for the effectiveness of PA in the management of PD-related pain and its associated symptoms, and helped elucidate the mechanism of its therapeutic effect on PD-related pain.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.