ArticleIntegrative medicine research2026
Pharmacopuncture therapy versus usual care for lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05242497 (Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacopuncture Therapy for Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis), which is not on this 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.
Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacopuncture Therapy for Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis : Multicentered, Pragmatic Randomized Controlled, Parallel Grouped Study
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is rising worldwide, particularly in aging societies, increasing the need for effective conservative treatments. Pharmacopuncture therapy (PPT), which involves injecting herbal extracts into targets such as acupoints, muscles or nerves to improve lumbar pain and function, is widely utilized in Korean clinical settings; however, high-quality evidence remains limited. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of PPT, compared with conventional medicine-based usual care (UC). Methods: This multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial included PPT and UC groups (1:1 ratio). Patients with LSS received treatment twice weekly for 12 weeks, with follow-ups at weeks 13, 25, and 53. Outcomes related to pain, functional disability, and quality of life were measured. Results: Ninety-six patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Change in the numeric rating scale (NRS) score for dominant pain from baseline to week 13 showed a significantly greater reduction of 2.7 points in the PPT group than in the UC group. The PPT group also showed significant improvements in other secondary outcomes, and these effects were sustained until week 53. A survival analysis of patients with a ≥50 % NRS score reduction over 53 weeks indicated significantly faster recovery in the PPT group than in the UC group. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Compared with UC, PPT was associated with significantly greater reductions in low back and leg pain and superior improvements in function and quality of life in patients with LSS. These findings support prioritizing PPT as an effective conservative treatment for LSS. Trial registration: This study was registered at CRIS (cris.nih.go.kr; KCT0007145) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05242497).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.