Pennsaid therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating a new topical diclofenac solution (Pennsaid) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: RCT were identified by searching electronic data sources as well as by contact with the manufacturer of Pennsaid. Details of study demographics, methodology, quality, and outcomes were analyzed. A metaanalysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of Pennsaid in OA of the knee was performed. RESULTS: Four RCT were analyzed in this systematic review (3 published reports and one published abstract). Mean trial duration was 8.5 weeks. Generally, these RCT were of excellent quality. The mean Jadad quality score was 4.5 out of 5. Many indicators of high quality in a RCT were found in these RCT, including adequate descriptions of the methods used for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. In comparison to a vehicle control placebo (VCP), the standardized mean differences (SMD) for the WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales, as well as for patient global assessment, were all statistically significant in favor of Pennsaid, with SMD ranging from 0.30 to 0.39. Pennsaid was as safe as VCP, with the only exception that it was more likely to result in minor skin dryness at the site of application (relative risk 1.7). In a 12 week equivalence trial that used the WOMAC subscales to compare treatment response, Pennsaid was as effective as oral diclofenac, but was much better tolerated. CONCLUSION: Pennsaid is an effective topical NSAID in patients with OA of the knee. Apart from minor localized skin reactions, Pennsaid was as safe as VCP. It is not known whether the favorable results of Pennsaid can be extrapolated to other topical NSAID preparations. Pennsaid deserves further consideration when the existing treatment guidelines for OA of the knee are updated.
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 | 0.029 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".