Efficacy and safety of diacerein in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, multicenter, double‐dummy, diclofenac‐controlled trial in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of diacerein in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A total of 223 patients fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee OA were enrolled in this 17‐week, randomized, double‐dummy, diclofenac‐controlled trial, with diacerein dosages of 100 mg/day and diclofenac sodium administered at 75 mg/day. Result: After 12 weeks of treatment, the total efficacy rates of patient/physician global assessment in diacerein and diclofenac groups were 65.4%/61.6% and 61.2%/61.2% respectively (P > 0.05). In the intent‐to‐treat population, the primary criterion (visual analogue scale [VAS] assessment of pain on walking 20 m) was significantly superior (P < 0.05) to baseline in both two groups. Significant improvement (P < 0.05) was also observed for the secondary criteria, which included tenderness on palpation, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index (WOMAC) and Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). In the follow‐up period, there were no obvious changes in the above parameters in the diacerein group. However, in the diclofenac group, pain on walking 20 m, tenderness on palpation and WOMAC became worse after withdrawing the medications for 4 weeks. Moreover, the consumption of paracetamol was significantly lower in the diacerein group than in the diclofenac group during the follow‐up period. The incidence of related adverse events were 35.7% in diacerein and 45.1% in diclofenac group (P > 0.05). Mild‐to‐moderate gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequent adverse events. Conclusion: Diacerein was shown to be as effective as diclofenac sodium in treating patients with knee OA, coupled with a carry‐over effect. Diacerein was generally well tolerated, with a good safety profile. No severe adverse events were occurred.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".