Factors Influencing Further Acupuncture Usage and a More Positive Outcome in Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee and the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Considering the chronicity of osteoarthritis-associated pain, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcome differences between patients who received immediate or delayed acupuncture in addition to usual care, and to identify predictors for further acupuncture usage and a better long-term outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Acupuncture in Routine Care study was an open-label randomized pragmatic trial. As adjunct to usual care patients (>40 y, clinical and radiologic diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, pain duration >6 mo) received either immediate acupuncture in the first 3 months or delayed acupuncture in the subsequent 3 months. After 36 months 613 of 632 patients were available and asked to complete follow-up questionnaires. Primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: A total of 500 (82%) of the contacted patients completed questionnaires. After 36 months the WOMAC Index did not differ significantly between groups (immediate acupuncture 36.53±26.19 vs. delayed acupuncture 38.24±25.54; P=0.420). Further acupuncture treatment during the follow-up period was reported by 202 patients and predicted by previous successful acupuncture treatment at baseline (odds ratio=2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.9). Less osteoarthritis symptoms (WOMAC Index) after 36 months were predicted by being an acupuncture responder at 6 months (P<0.001), having higher school education (P=0.005), not wanting to use medications (P=0.016), and using additional therapies (P≤0.001 to P=0.025). DISCUSSION: No long-term outcome differences were found between patients who received immediate versus those who received delayed acupuncture treatment. Education level and additional therapies were identified as predictors for a better long-term outcome.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".