Evaluation of efficacy and safety of diacerein in knee osteoarthritis in Chinese patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of diacerein in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A total of 223 patients satisfying the American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee OA were chosen for this 17-week, randomized, double-dummy, diclofenac sodium-controlled trial, with diacerein dosage of 100 mg/d and diclofenac sodium of 75mg/d. Efficacy and safety of both drugs were evaluated. RESULTS: Totally 106 patients in the diacerein group and 107 patients in the diclofenac group were considered qualified for the evaluation. After 12 weeks of treatment, the total effective rates of patients/physicians' overall assessment in diacerein and diclofenac groups were 65.4%/61.6% and 61.2%/61.2%, respectively (P > 0.05). The primary efficacy parameter [visual analog scale (VAS) assessment of pain on 20 metres walking] and the secondary efficacy parameters [tenderness on palpation, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 36-item Short-Form (SF-36) Health Survey] significantly improved compared with baseline in both groups (P < 0.05). In the follow-up period, there were no obvious changes in above parameters in diacerein group. However, in diclofenac group, pain on 20 metres walking, tenderness on palpation, and WOMAC became aggravated after withdrawing the drug for 4 weeks (P < 0.05). Moreover, the consumption of paracetamol was significantly lower in diacerein group than in diclofenac group during follow-up (P < 0. 001). The incidences of related adverse events were 35.7% in diacerein and 45.1% in diclofenac group, respectively. Mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Diacerein is as effective as diclofenac sodium in treating patients with knee OA. Furthermore, it has better extended effect and a good safety profile. It is generally well tolerated and has no severe adverse effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".