Comparing the efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2–specific inhibitors in treating osteoarthritis: Appropriate trial design considerations and results of a randomized, placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of the cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2)-specific inhibitors celecoxib and rofecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study, 475 patients with OA of the knee received either celecoxib 200 mg/day (n = 189), rofecoxib 25 mg/day (n = 190), or placebo (n = 96) for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline, week 3, and week 6 (or at the time of early termination). RESULTS: In primary measures of efficacy (OA pain score on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and total domain score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy. At week 6, celecoxib was associated with a 34-mm mean improvement on the VAS for OA pain, compared with 31.6 mm for rofecoxib and 21.2 mm for placebo. The difference between celecoxib and rofecoxib was -2.5 mm, with an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of 2.7 mm and within the prespecified definition of noninferiority. Secondary measures of efficacy showed similar results. All differences in primary and secondary measures of efficacy between the 2 active treatments and placebo were statistically significant (P < 0.02), whereas all of the comparisons of efficacy between celecoxib and rofecoxib met the predefined criteria for noninferiority. All treatments were well tolerated throughout the study, with similar proportions of patients withdrawing due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day are equally efficacious in treating the signs and symptoms of 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 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 | 0.075 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".