CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT04651478Updated Mar 23, 2021

Mental Representation Techniques for the Treatment of Parkinson´s Disease-related Pain

An interventional study of Action Observation+Motor Imagery through BCI and Action Observation through non-related with movement illustrations in Parkinson Disease and Pain, sponsored by Universidad Francisco de Vitoria. Status unknown at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-03-23.

Sponsored by Universidad Francisco de Vitoria · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Mar 2021), so the status shown — last known as Not yet recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
32
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Pain is an under-reported but prevalent symptom in Parkinson´s Disease (PD), impacting patients' quality of life. Both pain and PD conditions cause cortical excitability reduction, but mental representations techniques are thought to be able to counteract it, resulting also effective in chronic pain conditions. The investigators of the present project aim to evaluate the efficacy of a novel mental representation protocol in the management of pain in PD patients during the ON state. The investigators hypothesize that Action Observation (AO) and Motor Imagery (MI) training through a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) using Virtual Reality (AO+MI-BCI) can improve clinical pain and its central processing features.

Read the detailed description

Parkinson´s Disease (PD) affects between 4.1 and 4.6 million people in the world. The diagnosis of PD is currently clinical and based on its motor manifestations (bradykinesia, rest tremor, and rigidity). However, non-motor symptoms such as pain, fatigue, and neuropsychiatric manifestations are present in more than 70% of subjects. Pain affects about 85% of patients but is paradoxically under-reported and consequently under-treated in PD patients with a great impact on their quality of life. Levodopa, which is the election treatment in PD, has shown controversial results regarding pain sensitivity and has been shown ineffective for enhancing the endogenous pain modulation system. Furthermore, there is a lack of management protocols and nonpharmacologic treatments for pain in PD. Several syndromes are hypothesized to be involved in PD pain generation. Generally, PD patients suffer from alterations in peripheral transmission, sensitive-discriminative processing, pain perception, and pain interpretation in multiple levels, due to neurodegenerative changes in dopaminergic pathways and non-dopaminergic pain-related structures. Therefore, central mechanisms are proposed to be crucial for the development and establishment of pain in PD patients. Regarding pain processing features, PD patients have reduced pain thresholds, an augmented Temporal Summation (TS) after repetitive nociceptive stimulus, and the impairment of their Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) is correlated with greater severity and premature onset of the disease. Cortical excitability reduction is common in patients with pain. Therefore, diverse therapies are being developed to counteract this cortical excitability reduction and obtaining, consequently, effective pain relief. In consonance with these findings, in PD condition, especially in off state, there is also evidence of cortical excitability decrease but, to the best of investigators´ knowledge, there are no studies targeting cortical excitability to treat pain in PD. Thus, the present study proposes mental representation techniques for the treatment of PD-related pain. The mental representation techniques included in the protocol will be Action Observation (AO) and Motor Imagery (MI). The combination of AO and MI has shown to synergically increase cortical excitability, influencing the activation of cortical areas such as M1 and DLPFC. Specifically in PD, AO and MI have also demonstrated to produce corticomotor facilitation. In addition, mental representation training can produce neurophysiological activity similar to actual exercise training, which has shown to decrease the intensity and severity of pain in PD patients. The main aim of this study is to conduct an independent parallel randomized controlled trials based on AO+MI-BCI targeting changes in 1. validated general and specific PD related pain scales and 2. psychophysical measurements of pain modulation mechanisms. The investigators´ main hypothesis is that AO+MI-BCI will be superior to their respective control placebo intervention.

02

Conditions studied

  • Parkinson Disease
  • Pain

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Parkinson Disease
  • Pain
  • Action Observation
  • Motor Imagery
  • Virtual Reality
03

In context

Parkinson Disease

4,487 studies on the registry are indexed under Parkinson Disease; 1,082 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 32 is below the median of 40 across 3,294 interventional studies indexed under Parkinson Disease.

Browse Parkinson Disease studies →

Lead sponsor

Universidad Francisco de Vitoria is the lead sponsor of 52 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Neuroimaging study without previous pathologies.
  • Score > 5 in transfers (bed to chair and back) item in Barthel Index.
  • Score = or > 24 in Mini-Mental State Examination.
  • Able to provide informed consent to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of neurologic disease different from PD.
  • Presence of non-related to PD pain.
  • Dermatologic problems, wounds, or ulcers in the electrode's application area.
  • Significative difficulties in language.
  • History of alcohol or drugs abuse.
  • Non-controlled medical problems.
  • Pregnancy.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
32 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Action Observation+Motor Imagery through BCI

    Action Observation+Motor Imagery through a Brain-Computer Interface training paradigm in Virtual Reality using the "NeuRow" platform during 10 sessions of 20 minutes, divided in 4 series of 5 minutes.

    Behavioral: Action Observation+Motor Imagery through BCI

  • Placebo comparator
    Action Observation through non-related with movement illustrations

    Control Action Observation protocol of non-related with movement illustrations during 10 sessions of 20 minutes, divided in 4 series of 5 minutes.

    Behavioral: Action Observation through non-related with movement illustrations

Interventions

  • BehavioralAction Observation+Motor Imagery through BCI

    Patients will undergo the treatment through the NeuRow platform. NeuRow is a gamified Brain-Computer Interface training paradigm in Virtual Reality (or neurogame) that allows patients to perform the same actions as they would do in real-life by imaging the movement. In NeuRow, patients will see a boat and two high fidelity virtual arms gripping two oars in the first-person view. Patients will have to imagine the movement of each corresponding hand to rotate each oar and progress, observing the movement imagined on screen. The goal of the task is to collect as many flags as possible in a fixed amount of time. In order to improve adherence, the number of flags collected will be recorded in each session. It will be able to adapt the boat speed, turn speed, and cut-off angle, to help patients not to deviate in excess from the target. The treatment itself will be performed for 20 minutes each session, divided into 4 series of 5 minutes to prevent fatigue.

  • BehavioralAction Observation through non-related with movement illustrations

    The same configuration will be applied to simulate a BCI task, but playing a video about graphic illustrations, people's faces, and landscapes, never related to human movement. They will address interesting and changing topics to avoid patient's boredom. The control session will last 20 minutes, also divided into 4 series of 5 minutes and the therapist will give the instructions of observing and relax.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in King´s Parkinson´s Disease Pain Scale score

    Parkinson´s Disease specific scale that evaluates the localization, frequency, and intensity of pain. It has 14 items distributed in 7 domains: 1. Musculoskeletal Pain; 2. Chronic Pain; 3. Fluctuation-related Pain; 4. Nocturnal Pain; 5. Oro-facial Pain; 6. Discoloration, Oedema/Swelling Pain; 7. Radicular Pain. Each item is scored by severity (0, none to 3, very severe) multiplied by frequency (0, never to 4, all the time) resulting in a subscore of 0 to 12, the sum of which gives the total score with a theoretical range from 0 to 168, with higher scores indicating more severity and frequency of pain.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 2 weeks

  2. Change in King´s Parkinson´s Disease Pain Scale score

    Parkinson´s Disease specific scale that evaluates the localization, frequency, and intensity of pain. It has 14 items distributed in 7 domains: 1. Musculoskeletal Pain; 2. Chronic Pain; 3. Fluctuation-related Pain; 4. Nocturnal Pain; 5. Oro-facial Pain; 6. Discoloration, Oedema/Swelling Pain; 7. Radicular Pain. Each item is scored by severity (0, none to 3, very severe) multiplied by frequency (0, never to 4, all the time) resulting in a subscore of 0 to 12, the sum of which gives the total score with a theoretical range from 0 to 168, with higher scores indicating more severity and frequency of pain.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 1 month

  3. Change in Brief Pain Inventory score

    It contains 15 items, including 2 multi-item scales to measure the intensity of pain and its impact on the function and welfare of patients. It also presents open questions to assess the localization of pain and the treatment used for its management, just as its effectiveness. Scores oscillate from 0 to 110, with higher scores indicating more pain and more impact on function and welfare of patients.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 2 weeks

  4. Change in Brief Pain Inventory score

    It contains 15 items, including 2 multi-item scales to measure the intensity of pain and its impact on the function and welfare of patients. It also presents open questions to assess the localization of pain and the treatment used for its management, just as its effectiveness. Scores oscillate from 0 to 110, with higher scores indicating more pain and more impact on function and welfare of patients.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 1 month

  5. Change in Conditioned Pain Modulation

    Assesses the descending pain modulatory system. The Pain Pressure Threshold will be assessed in the middle of the distal phalanx of the thumb with ta handheld algometer, corresponding to the first test stimulus. Afterward, the patient will immerse the contrary hand up to the wrist into stirred ice-cold water (0-4º) maintaining it for 3 minutes, corresponding to the conditioning stimulus. If the pain is unbearable before the 3 minutes, the patient will be able to remove his/her hand. Immediately after removing the hand, a second Pain Pressure Threshold measure will be performed in the same place as the first one, corresponding to the second test stimulus. After 1-minute rest, a third Pain Pressure Threshold will be measured to assess the Conditioned Pain Modulation residual functioning.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 2 weeks

  6. Change in Conditioned Pain Modulation

    Assesses the descending pain modulatory system. The Pain Pressure Threshold will be assessed in the middle of the distal phalanx of the thumb with ta handheld algometer, corresponding to the first test stimulus. Afterward, the patient will immerse the contrary hand up to the wrist into stirred ice-cold water (0-4º) maintaining it for 3 minutes, corresponding to the conditioning stimulus. If the pain is unbearable before the 3 minutes, the patient will be able to remove his/her hand. Immediately after removing the hand, a second Pain Pressure Threshold measure will be performed in the same place as the first one, corresponding to the second test stimulus. After 1-minute rest, a third Pain Pressure Threshold will be measured to assess the Conditioned Pain Modulation residual functioning.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 1 month

  7. Change in Temporal Summation

    Represents excitatory modulation processes. It will be generated through the application of 10 pulses of the handheld pressure algometer over the middle of the distal phalanx of the thumb with the intensity of the Pain Pressure Threshold, previously calculated. In each pulse, pressure intensity will be increasing at a rate of 2 kg/s over the previously determined Pain Pressure Threshold intensity, leaving an interstimulus interval of one second according to the optimal method reported for inducing Temporal Summation with pressure pain. Before the first pressure pulse, subjects were taught to use a verbal numeric pain rating scale to rate the pain intensity of the first, fifth, and 10th pressure pulses. The verbal numeric pain rating scale ranged from 0 ("no pain") to 10 ("the worst possible pain").

    Time frame: From Baseline at 2 weeks

  8. Change in Temporal Summation

    Represents excitatory modulation processes. It will be generated through the application of 10 pulses of the handheld pressure algometer over the middle of the distal phalanx of the thumb with the intensity of the Pain Pressure Threshold, previously calculated. In each pulse, pressure intensity will be increasing at a rate of 2 kg/s over the previously determined Pain Pressure Threshold intensity, leaving an interstimulus interval of one second according to the optimal method reported for inducing Temporal Summation with pressure pain. Before the first pressure pulse, subjects were taught to use a verbal numeric pain rating scale to rate the pain intensity of the first, fifth, and 10th pressure pulses. The verbal numeric pain rating scale ranged from 0 ("no pain") to 10 ("the worst possible pain").

    Time frame: From Baseline at 1 month

  9. Changes in Pain Pressure Threshold

    Two Pain Pressure Thresholds will be measured by a handheld algometer, one over the most painful area (peripheric hyperalgesia) and the other one over the middle of the distal phalanx of the thumb (central hyperalgesia). The Pain Pressure Threshold will be applied with the algometer perpendicular to the skin increasing at a rate of 1 kg/s until the first sensation of pain. 3 measures with 30-seconds rest between them will be performed, taking the average as Pain Pressure Threshold.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 2 weeks

  10. Changes in Pain Pressure Threshold

    Two Pain Pressure Thresholds will be measured by a handheld algometer, one over the most painful area (peripheric hyperalgesia) and the other one over the middle of the distal phalanx of the thumb (central hyperalgesia). The Pain Pressure Threshold will be applied with the algometer perpendicular to the skin increasing at a rate of 1 kg/s until the first sensation of pain. 3 measures with 30-seconds rest between them will be performed, taking the average as Pain Pressure Threshold.

    Time frame: From Baseline at 1 month

Secondary outcomes

  1. Beck Depression Inventory

    Measures depressive symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 63 leading to 6 groups: 0-10, normal; 11-16, mild mood disturbance; 17-20, borderline clinical depression; 21-30, moderate depression; 31-40, severe depression; and over 40, extreme depression.

    Time frame: Baseline

  2. Beck Depression Inventory

    Measures depressive symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 63 leading to 6 groups: 0-10, normal; 11-16, mild mood disturbance; 17-20, borderline clinical depression; 21-30, moderate depression; 31-40, severe depression; and over 40, extreme depression.

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  3. Beck Depression Inventory

    Measures depressive symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 63 leading to 6 groups: 0-10, normal; 11-16, mild mood disturbance; 17-20, borderline clinical depression; 21-30, moderate depression; 31-40, severe depression; and over 40, extreme depression.

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

  4. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

    Measures anxious states and anxious traits. It has 20 items for assessing trait anxiety and 20 for state anxiety. All items are rated on a 4-point scale (e.g., from "Almost Never" to "Almost Always"). Higher scores indicate greater anxiety.

    Time frame: Baseline

  5. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

    Measures anxious states and anxious traits. It has 20 items for assessing trait anxiety and 20 for state anxiety. All items are rated on a 4-point scale (e.g., from "Almost Never" to "Almost Always"). Higher scores indicate greater anxiety.

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  6. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

    Measures anxious states and anxious traits. It has 20 items for assessing trait anxiety and 20 for state anxiety. All items are rated on a 4-point scale (e.g., from "Almost Never" to "Almost Always"). Higher scores indicate greater anxiety.

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

  7. Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

    Measures fear of movement-related pain. Its scores range from 11-44 points with higher scores indicating greater fear of pain, movement, and injury.

    Time frame: Baseline

  8. Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

    Measures fear of movement-related pain. Its scores range from 11-44 points with higher scores indicating greater fear of pain, movement, and injury.

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  9. Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

    Measures fear of movement-related pain. Its scores range from 11-44 points with higher scores indicating greater fear of pain, movement, and injury.

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

  10. Pain Catastrophizing Scale

    Measures catastrophizing thinking. Its total score range from 0-52, along with three subscale scores assessing rumination, magnification and helplessness, with higher scores indicating higher level of catastrophizing.

    Time frame: Baseline

  11. Pain Catastrophizing Scale

    Measures catastrophizing thinking. Its total score range from 0-52, along with three subscale scores assessing rumination, magnification and helplessness, with higher scores indicating higher level of catastrophizing.

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  12. Pain Catastrophizing Scale

    Measures catastrophizing thinking. Its total score range from 0-52, along with three subscale scores assessing rumination, magnification and helplessness, with higher scores indicating higher level of catastrophizing.

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

  13. Unified Parkinson´s Disease Rating Scale

    Measures disability in Parkinson´s Disease patients. The scale itself has four components: Part I, Mentation, Behavior and Mood; Part II, Activities of Daily Living; Part III, Motor aspects; Part IV, Associated Complications. Scores range from 0 to 159 with higher scores indicating more severity.

    Time frame: Baseline

  14. Unified Parkinson´s Disease Rating Scale

    Measures disability in Parkinson´s Disease patients. The scale itself has four components: Part I, Mentation, Behavior and Mood; Part II, Activities of Daily Living; Part III, Motor aspects; Part IV, Associated Complications. Scores range from 0 to 159 with higher scores indicating more severity.

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  15. Unified Parkinson´s Disease Rating Scale

    Measures disability in Parkinson´s Disease patients. The scale itself has four components: Part I, Mentation, Behavior and Mood; Part II, Activities of Daily Living; Part III, Motor aspects; Part IV, Associated Complications. Scores range from 0 to 159 with higher scores indicating more severity.

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

  16. Reaction Times

    Performed through 2 related subtasks. Finger Taping task, where the participants will be instructed to press the space bar on the keyboard as fast as possible and repeatedly with the index finger, to measure motor function. And Simple Reaction Time task, where participants will be instructed to press the left mouse button as fast as possible when the stimulus "+" appears in the center of the screen at a size of 2 cm x 2 cm, to measure simple perception and sustained alertness.

    Time frame: Baseline

  17. Reaction Times

    Performed through 2 related subtasks. Finger Taping task, where the participants will be instructed to press the space bar on the keyboard as fast as possible and repeatedly with the index finger, to measure motor function. And Simple Reaction Time task, where participants will be instructed to press the left mouse button as fast as possible when the stimulus "+" appears in the center of the screen at a size of 2 cm x 2 cm, to measure simple perception and sustained alertness.

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  18. Reaction Times

    Performed through 2 related subtasks. Finger Taping task, where the participants will be instructed to press the space bar on the keyboard as fast as possible and repeatedly with the index finger, to measure motor function. And Simple Reaction Time task, where participants will be instructed to press the left mouse button as fast as possible when the stimulus "+" appears in the center of the screen at a size of 2 cm x 2 cm, to measure simple perception and sustained alertness.

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

  19. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

    Action Motor Threshold in millivolts

    Time frame: Baseline

  20. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

    Action Motor Threshold in millivolts

    Time frame: At 2 weeks from Baseline

  21. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

    Action Motor Threshold in millivolts

    Time frame: At 1 month from Baseline

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital Beata María Ana
    Madrid, 28007, Spain
    • Juan Pablo Romero Muñoz, MD. PhD. · Contact · p.romero.prof@ufv.es · +34917091400
    • Yeray Gonzalez Zamorano, PT Msc. · Sub investigator
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Kalia LV, Lang AE. Parkinson's disease. Lancet. 2015 Aug 29;386(9996):896-912. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61393-3. Epub 2015 Apr 19. PubMed 25904081 ↗
  • Martinez-Martin P, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Kurtis MM, Chaudhuri KR; NMSS Validation Group. The impact of non-motor symptoms on health-related quality of life of patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2011 Feb 15;26(3):399-406. doi: 10.1002/mds.23462. Epub 2011 Jan 24. PubMed 21264941 ↗
  • Antonini A, Tinazzi M, Abbruzzese G, Berardelli A, Chaudhuri KR, Defazio G, Ferreira J, Martinez-Martin P, Trenkwalder C, Rascol O. Pain in Parkinson's disease: facts and uncertainties. Eur J Neurol. 2018 Jul;25(7):917-e69. doi: 10.1111/ene.13624. Epub 2018 Apr 18. PubMed 29520899 ↗
  • Wright DJ, Williams J, Holmes PS. Combined action observation and imagery facilitates corticospinal excitability. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Nov 27;8:951. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00951. eCollection 2014. PubMed 25505880 ↗
  • Vourvopoulos A, Ferreira A, Bermúdez i Badia S. NeuRow: An Immersive VR Environment for Motor-Imagery Training with the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces and Vibrotactile Feedback. 2016.
  • Morales Tejera D, Fernandez-Carnero J, Suso-Marti L, Cano-de-la-Cuerda R, Lerin-Calvo A, Remon-Ramiro L, La Touche R. Comparative study of observed actions, motor imagery and control therapeutic exercise on the conditioned pain modulation in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. Somatosens Mot Res. 2020 Sep;37(3):138-148. doi: 10.1080/08990220.2020.1756244. Epub 2020 Apr 27. PubMed 32340585 ↗
  • Vourvopoulos A, Jorge C, Abreu R, Figueiredo P, Fernandes JC, Bermudez I Badia S. Efficacy and Brain Imaging Correlates of an Immersive Motor Imagery BCI-Driven VR System for Upper Limb Motor Rehabilitation: A Clinical Case Report. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Jul 11;13:244. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00244. eCollection 2019. PubMed 31354460 ↗
  • Chaudhuri KR, Rizos A, Trenkwalder C, Rascol O, Pal S, Martino D, Carroll C, Paviour D, Falup-Pecurariu C, Kessel B, Silverdale M, Todorova A, Sauerbier A, Odin P, Antonini A, Martinez-Martin P; EUROPAR and the IPMDS Non Motor PD Study Group. King's Parkinson's disease pain scale, the first scale for pain in PD: An international validation. Mov Disord. 2015 Oct;30(12):1623-31. doi: 10.1002/mds.26270. Epub 2015 Jun 11. PubMed 26096067 ↗
  • Perez-Lloret S, Ciampi de Andrade D, Lyons KE, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Chaudhuri KR, Deuschl G, Cruccu G, Sampaio C, Goetz CG, Schrag A, Martinez-Martin P, Stebbins G; Members of the MDS Committee on Rating Scales Development. Rating Scales for Pain in Parkinson's Disease: Critique and Recommendations. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2016 Jun 24;3(6):527-537. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.12384. eCollection 2016 Nov-Dec. PubMed 30363588 ↗
  • Imai Y, Petersen KK, Morch CD, Arendt Nielsen L. Comparing test-retest reliability and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation using different combinations of test and conditioning stimuli. Somatosens Mot Res. 2016 Sep-Dec;33(3-4):169-177. doi: 10.1080/08990220.2016.1229178. Epub 2016 Sep 20. PubMed 27650216 ↗
  • Santos-Garcia D, Oreiro M, Perez P, Fanjul G, Paz Gonzalez JM, Feal Painceiras MJ, Cores Bartolome C, Valdes Aymerich L, Garcia Sancho C, Castellanos Rodrigo MDM. Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Parkinson's Disease: A Cross-Sectional Survey of 568 Spanish Patients. Mov Disord. 2020 Oct;35(10):1712-1716. doi: 10.1002/mds.28261. Epub 2020 Sep 22. PubMed 32776601 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Individual anonymized participant data will be available to other researchers under request.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 23, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04651478
Lead sponsor
Universidad Francisco de Vitoria
Collaborators
Hospital Beata María Ana, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 3, 2020
Start date
May 3, 2021 (estimated)
Primary completion
Oct 2021 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2021 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 23, 2021

Study contacts

Juan Pablo Romero Muñoz, MD PhD
Contact
p.romero.prof@ufv.es
+34917091400 ext. 1688
Juan Pablo Romero Muñoz, MD PhD
principal investigator · Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Facultad de Ciencias Experimentales
Josue Fernández Carnero, PT PhD
principal investigator · Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Mar 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion