Comparação da eficácia de tenoxicam administrado por via oral e intra‐articular a pacientes com osteoartrite de joelhos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tenoxicam is widely used in osteoarthritis treatment and we aimed to compare the effectivity of oral and intra-articular administration of tenoxicam in osteoarthritis treatment. METHODS: This study was performed between 2011 and 2012 by retrospectively analyzing and comparing the findings of 60 patients who were clinically and radiologically diagnosed with knee degenerative osteoarthritis in Bünyan state hospital pain policlinic. 60 patients included in the study were divided into two groups. The first group (tenoxicam IA, n=30) included patient findings of those subjected to intra-articular injection of 20mg tenoxicam to the knee once a week for three weeks and the second group (oral tenoxicam, n=30) included patients who were administered 20mg oral tenoxicam once a day for three weeks. All patients were clinically evaluated pre-treatment and in the 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month post-treatment according to specified criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 22 of 60 patients included in the study were male and 38 were female. In both groups significant improvements were detected in all of the observed parameters: visual analog scale, Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (pain, physical activity, knee stiffness) and Lequesne index scores and in the evaluations performed in 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month with respect to pre-treatment values. Besides, a better compliance to treatment and gastrointestinal system tolerability in tenoxicam IA group was also observed. Intra-articular tenoxicam administration could be thought as an alternative treatment method in patients with knee osteoarthritis who cannot use oral tenoxicam especially due to systemic gastrointestinal system side effects and those who have difficulties in adapting to treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".