Diabetic RetinopathyNCT02645383
PASCAL Laser Platform Produces Less Pain Responses Compared To Conventional Laser System
A study testing PASCAL laser and Conventional laser in people with Diabetic Retinopathy, run by Kocatepe University.
Trial summary
The aim of this study is to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser and to assess the association between patient characteristics and severity of pain. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Diabetic Retinopathy
- What is being tested?
- PASCAL laser and Conventional laser
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- May 2014to Jun 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients (>18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes and bilateral high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR)
Who cannot join
- Patients with a history of focal/grid photocoagulation, a history of orbital trauma, orbital infection or surgery, those with corneal or lens opacities, those with vitreous hemorrhage and non-compliant patients
About this study
Official title: An Observational Prospective Study of Comparing Pain Responses With Pattern Laser Platform and Conventional Laser System During the Panretinal Photocoagulation in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
The aim of this study is to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser and to assess the association between patient characteristics and severity of pain.
Read the detailed description
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a severe complication of diabetes mellitus characterized by new vessel formation in the retina and optic disc. Tight glycemic control and laser treatment in the early phases of the disease may slow the progression of PDR. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is a laser-based treatment modality that destroys the outer retina layers and thereby improves the oxygen supply of the inner retina. During the following years, sequential improvements took place, including introduction of yellow, green, and diode lasers with various advantages of each wavelength.
In 2006, a novel semi-automatic and multi-shot photocoagulator called as PASCAL (Pattern scan laser, Opti-Medica Corp., Santa Clara, California, USA) was introduced with a reduction in pulse duration of each laser spot from typical 100 ms down to 10-30 millisecond. Compared with the conventional laser, shorter pulses have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of damage to the adjacent retinal tissues.
Almost all patients experience pain during PRP. While some patients may tolerate the pain, the majority does not. One study reported that 64.1% of patients did not complete treatment due to pain and therefore had an increased risk of vision loss. To improve patient compliance, several anesthetic and analgesic techniques such as peribulbar anesthesia, oral anesthesia and topical eye drops have been used. The patient comfort, and thus compliance, may be improved by using the shorter exposure burns, avoiding red or infrared wavelengths with deeper penetration, and by decreasing overall treatment time.
The aim of the current study was to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser.
As a method of this study, both eyes were treated within the same session and while one eye was treated with PASCAL laser, the other was treated with conventional laser (ELLEX Integre, Adailade, Australia) with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, PASCAL laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) and conventional laser was performed in the first eyes in the other half of the patients randomly. While the spot size used to obtain a white-grayish spot on the retina was 200-400 µm in both PASCAL and conventional laser, the pulse duration was 100 ms with conventional laser and 30ms with PASCAL laser. In order to accurately and reliable compare the grade of pain between each procedures, the retinal areas and total number of spots were standardized. Similar numbers of laser spots were created by two laser systems in same retinal quadrants in both eyes. Ten minutes after the procedure ended the severity of pain was assessed using a verbal rating scale and a visual analog scale (VAS). In the verbal scale the patient rates the pain on a Likert scale verbally, e.g. "none", "mild pain", "moderate pain", "severe pain" or "very severe pain" in five grading system (0-4) and in the VAS they specify the severity of pain by indicating a position along a continuous line from 0 to 10. Using these scores, relationship between severity of pain and patient characteristics including history of prior PRP treatment (experience), gender and duration of diabetes mellitus were assessed. Patients were assigned either in the experienced or non-experienced groups depending on history of prior PRP.
- Conditions
- Diabetic Retinopathy
- Being tested
- PASCAL laser, Conventional laser
- Keywords
- Pattern scan laser, Proliferative diabetic retinopathy, Pain
- Medical subject headings
- Diabetic Retinopathy, Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PASCAL laserDevice
A novel semi-automatic and multi-shot photocoagulator called as PASCAL (Pattern scan laser, Opti-Medica Corp., Santa Clara, California, USA) was introduced with a reduction in pulse duration of each laser spot from typical 100 ms down to 10-30 millisecond. Compared with the conventional laser, shorter pulses have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of damage to the adjacent retinal tissues. One eye was treated with PASCAL laser, the other was treated with conventional laser with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, PASCAL laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) randomly.
Conventional laserDevice
Maintaining of good glycemic regulation and performing panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) with conventional laser device (ELLEX Integre, Adailade, Australia) when it is indicated are evidence based effective methods for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.One eye was treated with conventional laser, the other was treated with PASCAL laser with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, conventional laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) randomly.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PASCAL group | Active comparator | Patients undergone PASCAL laser photocoagulation Receives: Device: PASCAL laser |
| Conventional group | Active comparator | Patients undergone conventional laser photocoagulation Receives: Device: Conventional laser |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Verbal Score for pain
Verbal Score for pain was measured as units on the scale 10 minutes after the completion the laser procedure.
Measured: 3 months
Visual analog score for pain
Visual Analog Score for pain was measured as units on the scale 10 minutes after the completion the laser procedure.
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2014
- Primary completionJul 2014
- Study completionJun 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Diabetic RetinopathyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Kocatepe University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Umit Ubeyt INAN, Kocatepe University
- Investigators
- Umit U Inan, M.D, Principal investigator, Kocatepe University Medical School Department of Ophthalmology
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02645383
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 0112S299
- Status last verified
- Dec 2015
- First submitted
- 19 Dec 2015
- Last updated
- 1 Jan 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Aiello LP, Gardner TW, King GL, Blankenship G, Cavallerano JD, Ferris FL 3rd, Klein R. Diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 1998 Jan;21(1):143-56. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.1.143. No abstract available.
PubMed 9538986Feman SS, Chen J, Burroughs TE. Change in diabetic panretinal photocoagulation incidence. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2012 Jul 1;43(4):270-4. doi: 10.3928/15428877-20120618-02.
PubMed 22788579Jain A, Blumenkranz MS, Paulus Y, Wiltberger MW, Andersen DE, Huie P, Palanker D. Effect of pulse duration on size and character of the lesion in retinal photocoagulation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan;126(1):78-85. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2007.29.
PubMed 18195222Blumenkranz MS, Yellachich D, Andersen DE, Wiltberger MW, Mordaunt D, Marcellino GR, Palanker D. Semiautomated patterned scanning laser for retinal photocoagulation. Retina. 2006 Mar;26(3):370-6. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200603000-00024. No abstract available.
PubMed 16508446Zakrzewski PA, O'Donnell HL, Lam WC. Oral versus topical diclofenac for pain prevention during panretinal photocoagulation. Ophthalmology. 2009 Jun;116(6):1168-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.022. Epub 2009 Apr 19.
PubMed 19376588Wu WC, Hsu KH, Chen TL, Hwang YS, Lin KK, Li LM, Shih CP, Lai CC. Interventions for relieving pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation: a prospective randomized trial. Eye (Lond). 2006 Jun;20(6):712-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701989. Epub 2005 Jul 8.
PubMed 16021194Alvarez-Verduzco O, Garcia-Aguirre G, Lopez-Ramos Mde L, Vera-Rodriguez S, Guerrero-Naranjo JL, Morales-Canton V. Reduction of fluence to decrease pain during panretinal photocoagulation in diabetic patients. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2010 Jul-Aug;41(4):432-6. doi: 10.3928/15428877-20100525-02. Epub 2010 May 28.
PubMed 20608612Schuele G, Rumohr M, Huettmann G, Brinkmann R. RPE damage thresholds and mechanisms for laser exposure in the microsecond-to-millisecond time regimen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005 Feb;46(2):714-9. doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-0136.
PubMed 15671304Mainster MA. Decreasing retinal photocoagulation damage: principles and techniques. Semin Ophthalmol. 1999 Dec;14(4):200-9. doi: 10.3109/08820539909069538.
PubMed 10758220Al-Hussainy S, Dodson PM, Gibson JM. Pain response and follow-up of patients undergoing panretinal laser photocoagulation with reduced exposure times. Eye (Lond). 2008 Jan;22(1):96-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6703026. Epub 2007 Nov 23.
PubMed 18034195Nagpal M, Marlecha S, Nagpal K. Comparison of laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy using 532-nm standard laser versus multispot pattern scan laser. Retina. 2010 Mar;30(3):452-8. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c70127.
PubMed 20216293Muqit MM, Marcellino GR, Gray JC, McLauchlan R, Henson DB, Young LB, Patton N, Charles SJ, Turner GS, Stanga PE. Pain responses of Pascal 20 ms multi-spot and 100 ms single-spot panretinal photocoagulation: Manchester Pascal Study, MAPASS report 2. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 Nov;94(11):1493-8. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2009.176677. Epub 2010 Jun 16.
PubMed 20558423
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jan 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Observational Prospective Study of Comparing Pain Responses With Pattern Laser Platform and Conventional Laser System During the Panretinal Photocoagulation in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02645383
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 0112S299
- Conditions
- Diabetic Retinopathy
- Keywords
- Pattern scan laser, Proliferative diabetic retinopathy, Pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Kocatepe UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2014
- Primary completion
- Jul 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study is to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser and to assess the association between patient characteristics and severity of pain.
Detailed description
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a severe complication of diabetes mellitus characterized by new vessel formation in the retina and optic disc. Tight glycemic control and laser treatment in the early phases of the disease may slow the progression of PDR. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is a laser-based treatment modality that destroys the outer retina layers and thereby improves the oxygen supply of the inner retina. During the following years, sequential improvements took place, including introduction of yellow, green, and diode lasers with various advantages of each wavelength.
In 2006, a novel semi-automatic and multi-shot photocoagulator called as PASCAL (Pattern scan laser, Opti-Medica Corp., Santa Clara, California, USA) was introduced with a reduction in pulse duration of each laser spot from typical 100 ms down to 10-30 millisecond. Compared with the conventional laser, shorter pulses have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of damage to the adjacent retinal tissues.
Almost all patients experience pain during PRP. While some patients may tolerate the pain, the majority does not. One study reported that 64.1% of patients did not complete treatment due to pain and therefore had an increased risk of vision loss. To improve patient compliance, several anesthetic and analgesic techniques such as peribulbar anesthesia, oral anesthesia and topical eye drops have been used. The patient comfort, and thus compliance, may be improved by using the shorter exposure burns, avoiding red or infrared wavelengths with deeper penetration, and by decreasing overall treatment time.
The aim of the current study was to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser.
As a method of this study, both eyes were treated within the same session and while one eye was treated with PASCAL laser, the other was treated with conventional laser (ELLEX Integre, Adailade, Australia) with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, PASCAL laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) and conventional laser was performed in the first eyes in the other half of the patients randomly. While the spot size used to obtain a white-grayish spot on the retina was 200-400 µm in both PASCAL and conventional laser, the pulse duration was 100 ms with conventional laser and 30ms with PASCAL laser. In order to accurately and reliable compare the grade of pain between each procedures, the retinal areas and total number of spots were standardized. Similar numbers of laser spots were created by two laser systems in same retinal quadrants in both eyes. Ten minutes after the procedure ended the severity of pain was assessed using a verbal rating scale and a visual analog scale (VAS). In the verbal scale the patient rates the pain on a Likert scale verbally, e.g. "none", "mild pain", "moderate pain", "severe pain" or "very severe pain" in five grading system (0-4) and in the VAS they specify the severity of pain by indicating a position along a continuous line from 0 to 10. Using these scores, relationship between severity of pain and patient characteristics including history of prior PRP treatment (experience), gender and duration of diabetes mellitus were assessed. Patients were assigned either in the experienced or non-experienced groups depending on history of prior PRP.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PASCAL group | Active comparator | Device: PASCAL laserPatients undergone PASCAL laser photocoagulation |
| Conventional group | Active comparator | Device: Conventional laserPatients undergone conventional laser photocoagulation |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients (>18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes and bilateral high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with a history of focal/grid photocoagulation, a history of orbital trauma, orbital infection or surgery, those with corneal or lens opacities, those with vitreous hemorrhage and non-compliant patients
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PASCAL laserA novel semi-automatic and multi-shot photocoagulator called as PASCAL (Pattern scan laser, Opti-Medica Corp., Santa Clara, California, USA) was introduced with a reduction in pulse duration of each laser spot from typical 100 ms down to 10-30 millisecond. Compared with the conventional laser, shorter pulses have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of damage to the adjacent retinal tissues. One eye was treated with PASCAL laser, the other was treated with conventional laser with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, PASCAL laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) randomly. | Device | PASCAL group |
| Conventional laserMaintaining of good glycemic regulation and performing panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) with conventional laser device (ELLEX Integre, Adailade, Australia) when it is indicated are evidence based effective methods for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.One eye was treated with conventional laser, the other was treated with PASCAL laser with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, conventional laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) randomly. | Device | Conventional group |
Primary outcome
Verbal Score for pain
Time frame: 3 months
Verbal Score for pain was measured as units on the scale 10 minutes after the completion the laser procedure.
Visual analog score for pain
Time frame: 3 months
Visual Analog Score for pain was measured as units on the scale 10 minutes after the completion the laser procedure.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jan 2016.
- Results publication: PubMed 9538986Aiello LP, Gardner TW, King GL, Blankenship G, Cavallerano JD, Ferris FL 3rd, Klein R. Diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 1998 Jan;21(1):143-56. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.1.143. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 22788579Feman SS, Chen J, Burroughs TE. Change in diabetic panretinal photocoagulation incidence. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2012 Jul 1;43(4):270-4. doi: 10.3928/15428877-20120618-02.
- Results publication: PubMed 18195222Jain A, Blumenkranz MS, Paulus Y, Wiltberger MW, Andersen DE, Huie P, Palanker D. Effect of pulse duration on size and character of the lesion in retinal photocoagulation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan;126(1):78-85. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2007.29.
- Results publication: PubMed 16508446Blumenkranz MS, Yellachich D, Andersen DE, Wiltberger MW, Mordaunt D, Marcellino GR, Palanker D. Semiautomated patterned scanning laser for retinal photocoagulation. Retina. 2006 Mar;26(3):370-6. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200603000-00024. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 19376588Zakrzewski PA, O'Donnell HL, Lam WC. Oral versus topical diclofenac for pain prevention during panretinal photocoagulation. Ophthalmology. 2009 Jun;116(6):1168-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.022. Epub 2009 Apr 19.
- Results publication: PubMed 16021194Wu WC, Hsu KH, Chen TL, Hwang YS, Lin KK, Li LM, Shih CP, Lai CC. Interventions for relieving pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation: a prospective randomized trial. Eye (Lond). 2006 Jun;20(6):712-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701989. Epub 2005 Jul 8.
- Results publication: PubMed 20608612Alvarez-Verduzco O, Garcia-Aguirre G, Lopez-Ramos Mde L, Vera-Rodriguez S, Guerrero-Naranjo JL, Morales-Canton V. Reduction of fluence to decrease pain during panretinal photocoagulation in diabetic patients. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2010 Jul-Aug;41(4):432-6. doi: 10.3928/15428877-20100525-02. Epub 2010 May 28.
- Results publication: PubMed 15671304Schuele G, Rumohr M, Huettmann G, Brinkmann R. RPE damage thresholds and mechanisms for laser exposure in the microsecond-to-millisecond time regimen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005 Feb;46(2):714-9. doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-0136.
- Results publication: PubMed 10758220Mainster MA. Decreasing retinal photocoagulation damage: principles and techniques. Semin Ophthalmol. 1999 Dec;14(4):200-9. doi: 10.3109/08820539909069538.
- Results publication: PubMed 18034195Al-Hussainy S, Dodson PM, Gibson JM. Pain response and follow-up of patients undergoing panretinal laser photocoagulation with reduced exposure times. Eye (Lond). 2008 Jan;22(1):96-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6703026. Epub 2007 Nov 23.
- Results publication: PubMed 20216293Nagpal M, Marlecha S, Nagpal K. Comparison of laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy using 532-nm standard laser versus multispot pattern scan laser. Retina. 2010 Mar;30(3):452-8. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c70127.
- Results publication: PubMed 20558423Muqit MM, Marcellino GR, Gray JC, McLauchlan R, Henson DB, Young LB, Patton N, Charles SJ, Turner GS, Stanga PE. Pain responses of Pascal 20 ms multi-spot and 100 ms single-spot panretinal photocoagulation: Manchester Pascal Study, MAPASS report 2. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 Nov;94(11):1493-8. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2009.176677. Epub 2010 Jun 16.
Related trials for Diabetic Retinopathy
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Surabgene Lomparvovec Administered in the Suprachoroidal Space in Adult Participants With Diabetic Retinopathy Without Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema
Diabetic Retinopathy
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study to Test Whether BI 764524 Helps People With an Eye Condition Called Diabetic Retinopathy
Diabetic Retinopathy
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Long-Term Follow-up Study of ADVM-022 in DME (INFINITY-EXT)
Diabetic Macular Edema, Diabetic Retinopathy
RecruitingPhase 2
A Randomized, Phase 2 Study of Oral BGE-102 in Participants With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
A Case-Control Study Revealing Intraocular Microenvironment Characteristics in Patients With Ocular Diseases Based on Multi-Omics Analysis
Age- Related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Retinopathy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Umit U Inan, M.D principal investigator
Kocatepe University Medical School Department of Ophthalmology
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PASCAL laser and Conventional laser in people with Diabetic Retinopathy, run by Kocatepe University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jan 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Verbal Score for pain (time frame: 3 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02645383, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jan 2016; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 31 Oct 2026.