Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

Pilot study of H₂ therapy in Parkinson's disease: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Yoritaka A, Takanashi M, Hirayama M, Nakahara T, Ohta S, Hattori N. · Movement Disorders. 2013;28(6):836–839.

HumanH₂-rich waterPublished 2013
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Human

Reported design

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group pilot trial

Research topic

Parkinson’s disease

Administration classification

H₂-rich water

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

Japanese patients with Parkinson's disease receiving stable levodopa and other antiparkinsonian medication.

Sample

18 participants were randomized, nine per group. One placebo participant discontinued because of pollakiuria, leaving H₂-water n=9 and placebo n=8 at week 48.

Duration

Forty-eight weeks, with assessments at baseline and during follow-up through week 48.

Intervention

Participants drank 1,000 mL/day of hydrogen-rich water in addition to their unchanged antiparkinsonian medication.

Hydrogen form

H₂ dissolved in drinking water — H₂ only, not Brown's gas.

H₂ specification

The article describes saturated hydrogen water at approximately 0.8 mmol/L, supplied as a total daily volume of 1,000 mL.

H₂ flow

Not applicable — drinking water, not gas inhalation.

O₂ delivered with H₂

No O₂ was co-delivered as part of the intervention.

Comparator

Pseudo/placebo water, 1,000 mL/day, with the same stable levodopa and antiparkinsonian-drug regimen.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Primary endpoint: change in total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score from baseline to week 48; additional UPDRS analyses, medication stability, tolerability and adverse events.

Reported result

At week 48, total UPDRS change favored H₂ water: median −1.0 and mean −5.7±8.4 in the H₂ group versus median +4.5 and mean +4.1±9.2 with placebo (p<0.05). Six of nine H₂ participants improved and one was unchanged. The article states that additional analyses did not differ between groups. No participant changed levodopa or other antiparkinsonian medication; no adverse effect was attributed to H₂ water.

Results-extraction completeness

The author-uploaded full-text copy, allocation and attrition, water dose and concentration, primary and additional results, medication stability and adverse-event reporting were checked together with PubMed and the publisher record.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Very small pilot with 17 completers, one dropout, a single Japanese setting, large outcome variability and multiple analyses. The positive result was the total-UPDRS change; additional analyses were null. The trial predates a later multicenter randomized trial that did not confirm benefit. No dedicated funding or conflict-of-interest statement was identified in the checked article copy, so absence of funding or conflicts is not inferred.

Applies directly to

Levodopa-treated Japanese Parkinson's patients under this 48-week pilot protocol; the result is hypothesis-generating, not definitive evidence of disease modification.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Cochrane RoB 2 · parallel randomized trial · headline week-48 total UPDRS result

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Some concerns — preliminary; independent reviewer pending

Appraisal rationale

Small pilot, limited reporting of allocation concealment, one participant absent from the week-48 analysis, and no completed comparison with a prespecified analysis plan.

Appraisal domains

Some concerns — randomization is reported, but sequence generation and concealment are not fully documented in the extracted report. · Some concerns — placebo preparation and double blinding are described; adherence and protocol-deviation detail is limited. · Some concerns — 17 of 18 randomized participants were included at week 48; the impact of the missing result requires review. · Some concerns — UPDRS is appropriate, but assessor-blinding procedures need fuller verification. · Some concerns — multiple outcomes and time points; protocol and prespecified analysis have not been independently compared with the report.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 23400965 · DOI: 10.1002/mds.25375

Publisher access

The publisher page is paywalled; a free author-uploaded full-text copy is available on ResearchGate.

Extraction basis

Author-uploaded full-text PDF, PubMed record and publisher metadata; full-text extraction checked 9 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10