Phantom Limb PainNCT05296265
Efficacy and Mechanisms of Virtual Reality Treatment of Phantom Leg Pain
A study testing VR treatment for phantom limb pain in people with Phantom Limb Pain, run by Albert Einstein Healthcare Network at 3 sites in United States.
Trial summary
After amputation of an arm or leg, up to 90% of subjects experience a "phantom limb", a phenomenon characterized by persistent feelings of the missing limb. Many subjects with a phantom limb experience intense pain in the missing extremity that is often poorly responsive to medications or other interventions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 100 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Phantom Limb Pain
- What is being tested?
- VR treatment for phantom limb pain
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 46 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 10 May 2022to 6 Apr 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 to 100 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age 18 - 100 years
- Capacity to provide Informed Consent
- Unilateral above or below knee amputation more than 3 months prior to enrollment
- Absence of cognitive impairment, operationally defined as a Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of 18 or greater
- Pain averaged over the preceding 1 month in the phantom limb rated as greater than 4 on a scale of 0-10.
Who cannot join
- History of significant medical or neurological disorder such as stroke or moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (operationally defined as loss of consciousness for more than 30 minutes)
- History of significant or poorly controlled psychiatric disorders
- Current significant depression or anxiety as judged by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond \& Snaith, 1983).
- Current abuse of alcohol or drugs, prescription or otherwise
- Nursing a child, pregnant, or intent to become pregnant during the study
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
United States3 sites
Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute
Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, 19027
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104
University of Washington-Harborview Medical Center
Seattle, Washington, 98104
About this study
Official title: Efficacy and Mechanisms of Virtual Reality Treatment of Phantom Leg Pain: In-Person Treatment
After amputation of an arm or leg, up to 90% of subjects experience a "phantom limb", a phenomenon characterized by persistent feelings of the missing limb. Many subjects with a phantom limb experience intense pain in the missing extremity that is often poorly responsive to medications or other interventions. The proposed work will contrast the efficacy of two virtual reality treatments for phantom limb pain: a 'Distractor' and an Active VR treatment. In the Distractor treatment, participants are engaged in a visually immersive virtual reality experience that does not require leg movements (REAL i-Series® immersive VR experience). In the Active VR treatment, subjects play a series of VR games using the virtual rendering of both legs.
Read the detailed description
Almost 2 million people in the US have had an amputation and up to 90% of people with limb amputation experience the persistent sensation of the missing extremity, a phenomenon known as a "phantom limb" (Weeks et al., 2010). Additionally, a significant proportion of individuals with a phantom limb - up to 85% in some studies - experience persistent and debilitating pain in the missing limb, a condition known as phantom limb pain (hereafter PLP). Although existing therapies provide pain relief in some cases, there is widespread agreement that current approaches fall short of bringing relief to most individuals with PLP (Weeks et al., 2010).
The investigators recently completed a proof-of-concept study (Ambron et al., 2021) in which eight subjects with below knee amputations (BKA) underwent two virtual reality (VR) treatments for PLP. In an Active VR treatment, subjects played a variety of active games requiring leg movements while receiving high-quality visual feedback of the missing lower leg. Feedback about leg position was provided via an electromagnetic system using leg sensors (trackSTAR, Ascension Technologies Inc), and the program generated an image of the missing lower leg, visible as a first-person avatar. This treatment was contrasted with a "Distractor" treatment, in which participants were engaged in a visually immersive virtual reality experience that did not require leg movements (Cool!TM). Both treatments were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, but the Active VR treatment was also associated with reductions in pain interference, depression, and anxiety.
The specific aims of the current study are (i) to replicate our prior observations of efficacy of VR treatment in a larger sample of individuals with BKA; (ii) to test VR therapy in patients with above knee amputations; (iii) to compare the efficacy of Active VR treatment to Distractor VR treatment for PLP on measures of pain as well as psychological health and quality of life.
- Conditions
- Phantom Limb Pain
- Being tested
- VR treatment for phantom limb pain
- Medical subject headings
- Phantom Limb
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VR treatment for phantom limb painBehavioural
8 twice-weekly interventions of virtual reality treatment focused on reducing phantom limb pain.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Active VR treatment | Experimental | Subjects assigned to the Active VR treatment began by selecting an avatar, with features such as gender and skin color that could be chosen according to preference. During treatment, they participated in a variety of games and activities developed and used by our teams including Kick, Dog Food, Quest for Fire, Chess, Checkers, Sudoku, and surfing the internet. Subjects had substantial flexibility to select games according to their interests but were required to spend at least 30 minutes in each session in games that required forceful, large-amplitude movements of the amputated lower limb (e.g., Quest for Fire, Kick). Receives: Behavioral: VR treatment for phantom limb pain |
| Distractor VR treatment | Experimental | Subjects assigned to the Distractor VR treatment participated in the REAL i-Series immersive VR experience (REAL system), which had been demonstrated to reduce pain in several studies but lacked the hypothesized "active ingredients" of our Active VR treatment (visual and auditory feedback of movement of an extrapolated amputated limb). Subjects navigated through pleasant and relaxing VR environments; they did not see any rendering of their body and made no movements with their legs. Receives: Behavioral: VR treatment for phantom limb pain |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Changes in Pain Intensity
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987); 0 minimum score - 10 maximum score; higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome)
Measured: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
Changes in Pain Quality
McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987): a series of 4-point scales (0 none - 3 severe) assessing the intensity of 15 qualitative characteristics of pain (e.g., throbbing, shooting, cramping, etc.), where higher scores are worse (more severe). For every participant we computed the total pain score (maximum 45 points indicating severe pain). Then, we computed the difference in the total scores between time points (e.g. post treatment vs baseline). Therefore, negative scores indicate improvement in pain qualitative characteristics.
Measured: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Changes in Average Pain
Difference between 8th and 1st treatment session on scaled score measuring "average pain intensity since the previous intervention" on an 11-point numerical rating pain scale; (Scale = 0 - minimum score/no pain to 10 maximum score/pain as bad as participants can imagine); higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome).
Measured: 1st treatment versus 8th treatment (4 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Mar 2022
- Study start10 May 2022
- Primary completion16 Mar 2025
- Study completion6 Apr 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Phantom Limb PainStudies 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
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Forty individuals with above (AKA) or below (BKA) knee amputation suffering from chronic phantom limb pain (PLP) were recruited and quasi-randomly assigned to Active VR versus Distractor VR treatments.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 46 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Albert Einstein Healthcare Network
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Laurel Buxbaum, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network
- Investigators
- Laurel Buxbaum, PsyD, Principal investigator, Albert Einstein Healthcare Netork
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05296265
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2022-775.
- Other IDs
- 5R01HD104158-05
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 9 Feb 2022
- Last updated
- 30 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: After de-identification, individual participant data to be shared included descriptors of clinical status (e.g., time since amputation, level of amputation), background test battery results, and outcome measures results.
Publications
Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987 Aug;30(2):191-197. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)91074-8.
PubMed 3670870Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983 May;12(2):166-70. doi: 10.1093/ageing/12.2.166.
PubMed 6869117Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
PubMed 8628042Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38.
PubMed 8080219Goller AI, Richards K, Novak S, Ward J. Mirror-touch synaesthesia in the phantom limbs of amputees. Cortex. 2013 Jan;49(1):243-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.002. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
PubMed 22981809Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
PubMed 6880820Bastien CH, Vallieres A, Morin CM. Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med. 2001 Jul;2(4):297-307. doi: 10.1016/s1389-9457(00)00065-4.
PubMed 11438246Slater M, Steed A, McCarthy J, Maringelli F. The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Hum Factors. 1998 Sep;40(3):469-77. doi: 10.1518/001872098779591368.
PubMed 9849105Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011 Jan;4(1):8-11. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.82352.
PubMed 21772732Ambron E, Buxbaum LJ, Miller A, Stoll H, Kuchenbecker KJ, Coslett HB. Virtual Reality Treatment Displaying the Missing Leg Improves Phantom Limb Pain: A Small Clinical Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Dec;35(12):1100-1111. doi: 10.1177/15459683211054164. Epub 2021 Oct 27.
PubMed 34704486Robinson LR, Czerniecki JM, Ehde DM, Edwards WT, Judish DA, Goldberg ML, Campbell KM, Smith DG, Jensen MP. Trial of amitriptyline for relief of pain in amputees: results of a randomized controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jan;85(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00476-3.
PubMed 14970960Smith DG, Ehde DM, Hanley MA, Campbell KM, Jensen MP, Hoffman AJ, Awan AB, Czerniecki JM, Robinson LR. Efficacy of gabapentin in treating chronic phantom limb and residual limb pain. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 Sep-Oct;42(5):645-54. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.05.0082.
PubMed 16586190
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy and Mechanisms of Virtual Reality Treatment of Phantom Leg Pain: In-Person Treatment
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05296265
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2022-775.
- Conditions
- Phantom Limb Pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 46 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Albert Einstein Healthcare NetworkUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- 10 May 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 16 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 6 Apr 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 9 Sep 2026
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
After amputation of an arm or leg, up to 90% of subjects experience a "phantom limb", a phenomenon characterized by persistent feelings of the missing limb. Many subjects with a phantom limb experience intense pain in the missing extremity that is often poorly responsive to medications or other interventions. The proposed work will contrast the efficacy of two virtual reality treatments for phantom limb pain: a 'Distractor' and an Active VR treatment. In the Distractor treatment, participants are engaged in a visually immersive virtual reality experience that does not require leg movements (REAL i-Series® immersive VR experience). In the Active VR treatment, subjects play a series of VR games using the virtual rendering of both legs.
Detailed description
Almost 2 million people in the US have had an amputation and up to 90% of people with limb amputation experience the persistent sensation of the missing extremity, a phenomenon known as a "phantom limb" (Weeks et al., 2010). Additionally, a significant proportion of individuals with a phantom limb - up to 85% in some studies - experience persistent and debilitating pain in the missing limb, a condition known as phantom limb pain (hereafter PLP). Although existing therapies provide pain relief in some cases, there is widespread agreement that current approaches fall short of bringing relief to most individuals with PLP (Weeks et al., 2010).
The investigators recently completed a proof-of-concept study (Ambron et al., 2021) in which eight subjects with below knee amputations (BKA) underwent two virtual reality (VR) treatments for PLP. In an Active VR treatment, subjects played a variety of active games requiring leg movements while receiving high-quality visual feedback of the missing lower leg. Feedback about leg position was provided via an electromagnetic system using leg sensors (trackSTAR, Ascension Technologies Inc), and the program generated an image of the missing lower leg, visible as a first-person avatar. This treatment was contrasted with a "Distractor" treatment, in which participants were engaged in a visually immersive virtual reality experience that did not require leg movements (Cool!TM). Both treatments were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, but the Active VR treatment was also associated with reductions in pain interference, depression, and anxiety.
The specific aims of the current study are (i) to replicate our prior observations of efficacy of VR treatment in a larger sample of individuals with BKA; (ii) to test VR therapy in patients with above knee amputations; (iii) to compare the efficacy of Active VR treatment to Distractor VR treatment for PLP on measures of pain as well as psychological health and quality of life.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Forty individuals with above (AKA) or below (BKA) knee amputation suffering from chronic phantom limb pain (PLP) were recruited and quasi-randomly assigned to Active VR versus Distractor VR treatments.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Active VR treatment | Experimental | Behavioral: VR treatment for phantom limb painSubjects assigned to the Active VR treatment began by selecting an avatar, with features such as gender and skin color that could be chosen according to preference. During treatment, they participated in a variety of games and activities developed and used by our teams including Kick, Dog Food, Quest for Fire, Chess, Checkers, Sudoku, and surfing the internet. Subjects had substantial flexibility to select games according to their interests but were required to spend at least 30 minutes in each session in games that required forceful, large-amplitude movements of the amputated lower limb (e.g., Quest for Fire, Kick). |
| Distractor VR treatment | Experimental | Behavioral: VR treatment for phantom limb painSubjects assigned to the Distractor VR treatment participated in the REAL i-Series immersive VR experience (REAL system), which had been demonstrated to reduce pain in several studies but lacked the hypothesized "active ingredients" of our Active VR treatment (visual and auditory feedback of movement of an extrapolated amputated limb). Subjects navigated through pleasant and relaxing VR environments; they did not see any rendering of their body and made no movements with their legs. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 100 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Age 18 - 100 years
- Capacity to provide Informed Consent
- Unilateral above or below knee amputation more than 3 months prior to enrollment
- Absence of cognitive impairment, operationally defined as a Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of 18 or greater
- Pain averaged over the preceding 1 month in the phantom limb rated as greater than 4 on a scale of 0-10.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- History of significant medical or neurological disorder such as stroke or moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (operationally defined as loss of consciousness for more than 30 minutes)
- History of significant or poorly controlled psychiatric disorders
- Current significant depression or anxiety as judged by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond \& Snaith, 1983).
- Current abuse of alcohol or drugs, prescription or otherwise
- Nursing a child, pregnant, or intent to become pregnant during the study
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VR treatment for phantom limb pain8 twice-weekly interventions of virtual reality treatment focused on reducing phantom limb pain. | Behavioural | Active VR treatment, Distractor VR treatment |
Primary outcome
Changes in Pain Intensity
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987); 0 minimum score - 10 maximum score; higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome)
Changes in Pain Quality
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987): a series of 4-point scales (0 none - 3 severe) assessing the intensity of 15 qualitative characteristics of pain (e.g., throbbing, shooting, cramping, etc.), where higher scores are worse (more severe). For every participant we computed the total pain score (maximum 45 points indicating severe pain). Then, we computed the difference in the total scores between time points (e.g. post treatment vs baseline). Therefore, negative scores indicate improvement in pain qualitative characteristics.
1 secondary outcome
Changes in Average Pain
Time frame: 1st treatment versus 8th treatment (4 weeks)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Sep 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 3670870Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987 Aug;30(2):191-197. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)91074-8.
- Background: PubMed 6869117Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983 May;12(2):166-70. doi: 10.1093/ageing/12.2.166.
- Background: PubMed 8628042Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
- Background: PubMed 8080219Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38.
- Background: PubMed 22981809Goller AI, Richards K, Novak S, Ward J. Mirror-touch synaesthesia in the phantom limbs of amputees. Cortex. 2013 Jan;49(1):243-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.002. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
- Background: PubMed 6880820Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
- Background: PubMed 11438246Bastien CH, Vallieres A, Morin CM. Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med. 2001 Jul;2(4):297-307. doi: 10.1016/s1389-9457(00)00065-4.
- Background: PubMed 9849105Slater M, Steed A, McCarthy J, Maringelli F. The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Hum Factors. 1998 Sep;40(3):469-77. doi: 10.1518/001872098779591368.
- Background: PubMed 21772732Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011 Jan;4(1):8-11. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.82352.
- Background: PubMed 34704486Ambron E, Buxbaum LJ, Miller A, Stoll H, Kuchenbecker KJ, Coslett HB. Virtual Reality Treatment Displaying the Missing Leg Improves Phantom Limb Pain: A Small Clinical Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Dec;35(12):1100-1111. doi: 10.1177/15459683211054164. Epub 2021 Oct 27.
- Background: PubMed 14970960Robinson LR, Czerniecki JM, Ehde DM, Edwards WT, Judish DA, Goldberg ML, Campbell KM, Smith DG, Jensen MP. Trial of amitriptyline for relief of pain in amputees: results of a randomized controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jan;85(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00476-3.
- Background: PubMed 16586190Smith DG, Ehde DM, Hanley MA, Campbell KM, Jensen MP, Hoffman AJ, Awan AB, Czerniecki JM, Robinson LR. Efficacy of gabapentin in treating chronic phantom limb and residual limb pain. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 Sep-Oct;42(5):645-54. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.05.0082.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. After de-identification, individual participant data to be shared included descriptors of clinical status (e.g., time since amputation, level of amputation), background test battery results, and outcome measures results.
Related trials for Phantom Limb Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Cryo NerVe Block Extremity AmputatioN RegIStry for Post Operative and pHantom Limb Pain
Amputation, Amputation of Lower Limb
RecruitingObservational study
Early Postoperative Pain Following a Limb Amputation
Amputation, Surgical, Pain Management
Recruiting
Uses of Phantom Sensations Induced by Global and Local Modifications of the Prosthetic Socket as Somatosensory Feedback During Walking in Lower Limb Amputees
Lower Limb Amputation
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Role of Perineural Catheter in Pain Control and Opioid Consumption After Major Amputation of Lower Limb
Lower Limb Surgery, Pain
Recruiting
TENS for Restoring Somatotopic Sensory Feedback in Lower Limb Amputees and Improving Phantom Limb Perception
Lower Limb Amputation Above Knee, Lower Limb Amputation Below Knee
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.
Laurel Buxbaum, PsyD principal investigator
Albert Einstein Healthcare Netork
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing VR treatment for phantom limb pain in people with Phantom Limb Pain, run by Albert Einstein Healthcare Network at 3 sites in United States.
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 5 inclusion and 5 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 30 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 9 Sep 2026). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Changes in Pain Intensity (time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.). 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 NCT05296265, 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 30 Sep 2026.