Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacopuncture Therapy Compared to Standard Physical Therapy in Patients with Chronic Knee Pain: A Pilot Study for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: There have been a limited number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacopuncture therapy (PPT) and physical therapy (PT) for chronic knee pain. In this study, we assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary effectiveness of PPT compared to PT in patients with chronic knee pain. Materials and Methods: This pilot study was designed as a two-arm, parallel RCT. Patients were recruited through in-hospital advertisements. Forty patients aged 19 to 70 with knee pain with a numeric rating scale (NRS) score of 5, persisting for >3 months, were randomized into the PPT or PT group. The type of PT solution or PT method was not determined in advance, leaving it to the clinician’s judgment. Treatment was administered twice weekly for 3 weeks with a 6-week follow-up. The primary outcome was the NRS score for knee pain, whereas the secondary outcomes were the visual analog scale (VAS), knee range of motion, Korean Western Ontario and McMaster (K-WOMAC), Patient Global Impression of Change, and five-level EuroQol five-dimension scores. Additionally, adherence, acceptability, dropout rate, and adverse events were measured to assess the feasibility of a follow-up main study. The protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06505681). Results: The PPT group showed significantly superior improvement compared with the PT group in the NRS (difference = −2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.76 to −1.34), VAS (difference = −21.58, 95% CI: −29.42 to −13.74), and K-WOMAC scores (difference = −13.17, 95% CI: −21.67 to −4.67). Of the 55 patients who initially expressed interest in participation, 8 declined after receiving detailed information about this study. Among the forty enrolled participants, one patient in the PPT group dropped out, and one missed a single treatment session. Apart from these cases, all participants completed the assigned treatments and follow-up assessments, demonstrating high adherence. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: PPT demonstrated excellent effectiveness in pain relief and functional improvement in these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".