Suppr超能文献

与标准物理治疗相比,药针疗法治疗慢性膝关节疼痛患者的有效性和安全性:一项实用随机对照试验的初步研究。

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.

作者信息

Jeong Myung In, Lim Jun Kyu, Kim Yong Jun, Jeon Yu Sun, Kim Suna, Kim Chang Youn, Park Yeon-Cheol, Kim Eun-Jung, Hong Yejin, Nam Dongwoo, Lee Yoon Jae, Kim Doori, Ha In-Hyuk

机构信息

Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine, Daejeon Jaseng Hospital of Korean Medicine, Daejeon 34127, Republic of Korea.

Department of Korean Internal Medicine, Daejeon Jaseng Hospital of Korean Medicine, Daejeon 34127, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Jun 18;61(6):1106. doi: 10.3390/medicina61061106.

Abstract

: 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. : 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). : 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. : PPT demonstrated excellent effectiveness in pain relief and functional improvement in these patients.

摘要

比较药物穴位注射疗法(PPT)和物理疗法(PT)治疗慢性膝关节疼痛的随机对照试验(RCT)数量有限。在本研究中,我们评估了与PT相比,PPT治疗慢性膝关节疼痛患者的可行性、安全性和初步有效性。:这项前瞻性研究设计为双臂平行随机对照试验。通过医院内广告招募患者。40名年龄在19至70岁之间、膝关节疼痛且数字评分量表(NRS)评分为5分、持续时间超过3个月的患者被随机分为PPT组或PT组。PT溶液类型或PT方法未预先确定,由临床医生判断。治疗每周进行两次,共3周,并进行6周的随访。主要结局是膝关节疼痛的NRS评分,次要结局是视觉模拟量表(VAS)、膝关节活动范围、韩国西部安大略和麦克马斯特(K-WOMAC)量表、患者整体改善印象以及欧洲五维健康量表五级评分。此外,还测量了依从性、可接受性、退出率和不良事件,以评估后续主要研究的可行性。该方案已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT06505681)上注册。:PPT组在NRS评分(差异=-2.05,9%置信区间[CI]:-2.76至-1.34)、VAS评分(差异=-21.58,95%CI:-29.42至-13.74)和K-WOMAC评分(差异=-13.17,95%CI:-21.67至-4.67)方面显示出比PT组显著更好的改善。在最初表示有兴趣参与的55名患者中,8名在收到本研究的详细信息后拒绝。在40名登记参与者中,PPT组有1名患者退出,1名错过一次治疗疗程。除这些情况外,所有参与者均完成了分配的治疗和随访评估,显示出高依从性。未报告严重不良事件。:PPT在这些患者的疼痛缓解和功能改善方面显示出优异的有效性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验