Does Mud Pack Treatment Have Any Chemical Effect? A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reveal the efficacy of mud pack treatment in patients with knee osteoarthritis and to find the contribution of chemical factors to the build up of these effects. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to directly applied mud pack (study) group or to nylon-covered mud pack (control) group. Thirty patients in the study group had mud application 15 times to both knees: heated mud, up to 43 degrees C, was applied to skin directly for 30 minutes. Thirty patients in the control group had the same treatment as the study group except heated mud was applied over an impermeable nylon pack. Primary outcome measures of the study were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index, pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS), patient's assessment of disease severity index, physician's assessment of disease severity index, and analgesic consumption. The patients were evaluated before and after (end of 15th application) the intervention and followed up for 24 weeks at 4-week intervals. The results were assessed on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: As compared to the baseline, significant decreases were observed in WOMAC, pain intensity, disease severity index scores, and analgesic consumption in both groups after the intervention. Observed improvements in the study group were found to be superior to the control during the whole postintervention follow-up, except for analgesic consumption in the third week. A significant number of patients in the study group showed minimal clinically important improvement as compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Mud pack treatment significantly improved the pain and functional status of patients with knee osteoarthritis, whether applied directly or coated with nylon. Direct application was found to be superior, which implies chemical properties of the mud contribute to the build up of therapeutic effect.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".