Efficacy and Safety of Topical Nimesulide in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects mainly older people who are more sensitive to adverse effects of classic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Recent publications indicate that topically applied nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective and much safer than their oral analogues. OBJECTIVES: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study design, we aimed to investigate whether topical nimesulide treatment has any beneficial effect in knee OA patients. METHODS: Seventy-four adult knee OA outpatients were enrolled. We used Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and patient and physician global satisfaction scores. WOMAC and NHP scores were measured at the initial and final visit. Treatment group received topical nimesulide gel 1% on the knee skin 3 times a day whereas placebo group received an identical-appearing gel for 30 days. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the nimesulide treatment group for all 3 parameters and overall score of WOMAC between pretreatment and posttreatment values. The overall WOMAC scores was significantly better than placebo (P = 0.03), but physical functioning, stiffness, and pain scales did not reach statistical significance. For the NHP scores there was an improvement at "energy level," "pain," "physical motion," and "NHP distress" scores in the treatment group whereas no improvement was found in the placebo group. Between-group differences were not significant. Both patient and physician satisfaction scores were significantly better in the treatment group. CONCLUSION: This study shows that topical nimesulide gel can have beneficial effects and can improve quality of life in patients with knee OA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".