Comparison of prednisolone with piroxicam in complex regional pain syndrome following stroke: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) following stroke aggravates morbidity. CRPS is categorized as CRPSI when no clear nerve injury is defined, and CRPSII when associated with clear nerve injury. AIM: To compare the effect of prednisolone with that of piroxicam in patients with CRPSI following stroke. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with CRPSI fulfilling the inclusion criteria (n = 60) underwent a detailed neurological examination, cranial CT scan, radiograph of chest and shoulder joint, blood counts and serum chemistry. Severity of stroke was assessed by the Canadian Neurological Scale (CNS), CRPS by scoring sensory, autonomic and motor symptoms, and activity of daily living by Barthel index (BI) score. Patients were randomly assigned prednisolone 40 mg or piroxicam 20 mg daily, and outcome was assessed at 1 month on the basis of CRPS and BI score. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 56 years and 20 were female. Baseline clinical and radiological parameters were comparable between the two groups. In the prednisolone group, 83.3% patients showed significant improvement, compared to 16.7% in the piroxicam group. The mean change in CRPS score in prednisolone group was 6.47 (95%CI 4.37-7.36), whereas in piroxicam group it was only 0.47. The mean change in BI score was 7.9 (95%CI 0.82-5.98) in the prednisolone group, and 4.5 in the piroxicam group. DISCUSSION: In this patient group, prednisolone resulted in significant improvement in the symptoms and signs of CRPSI following stroke, compared to piroxicam. Both drugs produced an improvement in the BI score.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".