Perspectives on Integrative Medicine

Protocol

Study Protocol for a Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Evaluating Pharmacopuncture Versus Acupuncture for Chronic Neck Pain: Ju Yeon Kim, Suna Kim, Yeonsun Lee, Hyun-Woo Cho, Yejin Hong, Dongwoo Nam, Yeoncheol Park, Eun-Jung Kim, Sook-Hyun Lee, Yoon Jae Lee, In-Hyuk Ha; Perspect Integr Med. 2025;4(3):181-189. Published online October 22, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.56986/pim.2025.10.007

304 View
9 Download

Graphical Abstract Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Background
Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, which is becoming increasingly common with the rise in computer and smartphone use. For many, this condition leads to chronic discomfort, and disability in daily life. Although pharmacopuncture represents a major treatment modality for neck pain in Korean medicine, its effectiveness and safety as compared with standard acupuncture has not been thoroughly investigated.
Methods
A study protocol for a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was designed with a parallel-group approach. A total of 128 participants, each experiencing chronic neck pain for at least 3 months, will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the pharmacopuncture or acupuncture group and receive treatment twice weekly for 4 weeks. The primary outcome will be the change in score for neck pain, as assessed using the numeric rating scale, 5 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes will include evaluations using the visual analog scale, Northwick Park Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index, Patient Global Impression of Change, Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument with eight items, and the EuroQol-5 Dimension. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted and reported separately.
Discussion
The rigorous study design is intended to ultimately provide practical evidence for clinicians and policymakers regarding the use of pharmacopuncture treatment for chronic neck pain. By directly comparing its effectiveness with standard acupuncture, the results of the trial outcomes will offer insights that may inform future healthcare decisions. Trial registration: This protocol has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06520462) on July 25, 2024.

Review Article

Effectiveness and Safety of Low-Level Laser Treatment for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Sang Jun Lee, Seung Jin Noh, Jeong Rock Kim, Kyung Bok Park, Sae-rom Jeon, Yejin Hong, Dongwoo Nam; Perspect Integr Med. 2023;2(3):155-163. Published online October 23, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.56986/pim.2023.10.003

17,212 View
161 Download
2 Citations

Graphical Abstract Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Background
Low-level laser treatment (LLLT) is used to treat low back pain (LBP) however, its effects on lumbar disc herniation (LDH) remain unclear. The safety and effectiveness of LLLT for LDH was determined using a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
Methods
Studies on LLLT in adults with LDH were identified from 12 worldwide databases. A risk of bias assessment and a meta-analysis with categorization according to the type of control used (inactive, active, or add-on) was performed. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
Results
The quantitative analyses included five studies. LLLT was significantly more effective at treating LDH [leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) mean difference (MD): -1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.01, -1.80, I2 80%; LBP VAS MD: -0.79, 95% CI: -0.87, -0.71, I2 80%] than inactive controls (placebo or sham). The quality of the evidence ranged from “low” to “very low.” As an add-on to usual care, LLLT significantly improved pain intensity and disability compared with usual care (leg pain VAS MD: -2.52, 95% CI: -2.65, -2.40, I2 97%; LBP VAS MD: -1.47, 95% CI: -1.58, -1.36; Oswestry Disability Index MD: -4.10, 95% CI: -4.55, -3.65, I2 6%). However, the quality of the evidence ranged from “moderate” to “low.”
Conclusion
LLLT significantly improved outcomes compared with the inactive controls, but was not more effective than usual care for LDH. In combination with usual care, LLLT was significantly more effective than usual care alone highlighting the potential of LLLT.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy in patients with spinal radiculopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Hernán Andrés de la Barra Ortiz, Nivaldo Antonio Parizotto, Richard Eloin Liebano
Lasers in Medical Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Low-Level Laser Therapy in Osteoarthritic Pain: A Narrative Review with an approach to integrated clinical use.
S.N. Hennessy, G.D. Corcoran
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open.2025; : 100685. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search