[Clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture at the motor area for Parkinson's disease with musculoskeletal pain: a randomized controlled trial].
[Clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture at the motor area for Parkinson's disease with musculoskeletal pain: a randomized controlled trial].
AI-authored example based only on the available abstract or description. Supporting quotes match the source; interpretations have not had expert review.
In brief
Does electrical acupuncture reduce musculoskeletal pain in people with Parkinson's compared with a sham procedure?
Read the supporting text
To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) at the motor area for Parkinson's disease (PD) with musculoskeletal pain.
Fifty-eight people were randomly assigned to two groups of 29. One person in each group dropped out. Treatment lasted five days, with later checks up to four weeks after treatment.
Read the supporting text
Fifty-eight patients with PD accompanied by musculoskeletal pain were randomly assigned to an EA group (29 cases, 1 case dropped out) and a sham EA group (29 cases, 1 case dropped out).
Pain scores favored electrical acupuncture. But movement, mood and quality-of-life scores did not differ significantly between the two groups after treatment. Improvement within one group is not the same as outperforming the comparison group.
Read the supporting text
There were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores between the two groups at any post-treatment time point (P>0.05).
This study concerns pain and short-term symptom measures. Those outcomes do not establish that the underlying disease was slowed.
Read the supporting text
Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, unified Parkinson's disease rating scale part Ⅲ (UPDRS-Ⅲ), 24-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-24), Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA), and 39-item Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores were evaluated
It is useful for learning how to distinguish symptom research from progression research, and why between-group comparisons matter.
Read the supporting text
There were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores between the two groups