Acupuncture in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: A randomized, controlled trial with an additional nonrandomized arm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture in addition to routine care, compared with routine care alone, in the treatment of patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic pain due to OA of the knee or hip were randomly allocated to undergo up to 15 sessions of acupuncture in a 3-month period or to a control group receiving no acupuncture. Another group of patients who did not consent to randomization underwent acupuncture treatment. All patients were allowed to receive usual medical care in addition to the study treatment. Clinical OA severity (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) and health-related quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline and after 3 months and 6 months. RESULTS: Of 3,633 patients (mean +/- SD age 61.8 +/- 10.8 years; 61% female), 357 were randomized to the acupuncture group and 355 to the control group, and 2,921 were included in the nonrandomized acupuncture group. At 3 months, the WOMAC had improved by a mean +/- SEM of 17.6 +/- 1.0 in the acupuncture group and 0.9 +/- 1.0 in the control group (3-month scores 30.5 +/- 1.0 and 47.3 +/- 1.0, respectively [difference in improvement 16.7 +/- 1.4; P < 0.001]). Similarly, quality of life improvements were more pronounced in the acupuncture group versus the control group (P < 0.001). Treatment success was maintained through 6 months. The changes in outcome in nonrandomized patients were comparable with those in randomized patients who received acupuncture. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that acupuncture plus routine care is associated with marked clinical improvement in patients with chronic OA-associated pain of the knee or hip.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".