A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DICLOFENAC AND ACECLOFENAC IN THE TREATMENT OF OSTEOARTHRITIS PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Osteoarthritis is a slowly evolving, active disease of degeneration of the articular cartilage associated with symptoms of joint pain, stiffness and limitation of movement. Typically, these symptoms tend to worse with weight bearing and activity. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs play an important role in the management of osteoarthritis. This study was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of Aceclofenac and Diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis patient. Design: Randomized, single blinded, parallel group clinical study Intervention: The study was conducted in 140 patients of OA. After initial clinical assessment and baseline investigations, Aceclofenac was prescribed to 70 patients and Diclofenac to another 70 patients for 8 weeks. At follow-up, the patients were re-evaluated and compared statistically. Main outcome measures: were Western Ontario MacMaster (WOMAC) scores, time taken to walk 100 feet, visual analogue scores for pain, investigators assessment for disease status and response to therapy, patient response to drug and joint tenderness. Safety assessment was based on adverse events. Results: Aceclofenac significantly improved patient’s clinical condition from baseline to day 56. Aceclofenac was found to be superior to Diclofenac in efficacy parameters of WOMAC osteoarthritis index scores (p<0.0001), joint tenderness (p<0.0001), investigator assessment for disease status (p=0.01) and response to therapy (p=0.038), patient response to drug (p=0.024). Aceclofenac and Diclofenac were equally effective in other efficacy parameters. Aceclofenac was found well tolerated than Diclofenac in terms of epigastric discomfort, dyspepsia and abdominal pain. Conclusion: Aceclofenac is a better choice in osteoarthritis in comparison to Diclofenac due to its better efficacy and safety.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".