Valdecoxib Is as Efficacious as Diclofenac in the Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of valdecoxib 40 mg q.d. (with a second dose on day 1) with diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of acute low back pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Patients with acute low back pain, class 1a or 2a (Quebec Task Force), with a visual analog scale score >/=50 mm (on a 100-mm scale) and moderate to severe pain on a categorical scale, were randomized to valdecoxib 40 mg q.d. (with a second dose on day 1) or diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. for 7 days (170 patients per group). The primary efficacy end point was change in pain intensity (visual analog scale, mm) from baseline to day 3 for the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Least squares mean reductions in pain intensity from baseline to day 3 were similar for valdecoxib (-42.02 mm) and diclofenac (-41.43 mm). Valdecoxib was comparable to diclofenac as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the estimated difference (0.59 mm; 95% confidence interval, -3.40 to 4.59 mm) was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10 mm. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar for valdecoxib (28%) and diclofenac (26%). No statistically different moderate or severe upper gastrointestinal adverse events were reported, although they were numerically greater for diclofenac (8) than for valdecoxib (3). DISCUSSION: Valdecoxib 40 mg q.d. (with a second dose on day 1) provides effective relief for acute low back pain, and was at least as efficacious as diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., with a nonsignificant but numerically lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".