A pragmatic randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of low concentrated saline spa water baths followed by ultraviolet B (UVB) compared to UVB only in moderate to severe psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether low concentrated saline spa water baths followed by ultraviolet B (LC-SSW-UVB) are superior to UVB alone in moderate to severe psoriasis. BACKGROUND: There is a lack of sufficiently large randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the additional benefit of saltwater baths followed by UVB compared to UVB only in psoriasis. STUDY DESIGN: Partly evaluator blind, multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Five German spa centres. SUBJECTS: One hundred and forty-three adults with stable psoriasis during the last month and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of > 10 and/or an affected body surface area of > 15%. INTERVENTIONS: LC-SSW-UVB or UVB thrice a week until remission (PASI < 5) or for a maximum of 6 weeks. Sodium chloride concentrations of natural springs varied between 4.5% and 12%. Conventional UVB (broadband UVB or selective UVB phototherapy) was used as irradiation source. MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction of PASI and/or affected body surface area of 50% at the end of the intervention period (PASI-50). Only participants receiving at least one intervention were included in the primary analysis. RESULTS: Patients allocated to LC-SSP-UVB attained a statistically significantly higher rate of PASI-50 at the end of the intervention period than patients allocated to UVB [58/79 (73%) vs. 32/64 (50%); P = 0.01; NNT, 4.3, 95% CI, 2.4-18.1]. Benefit persisted until 3 months only for one of two secondary outcomes considered. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical practice balneophototherapy using conventional UVB is superior to conventional UVB only at the end of a 6-week treatment course.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".