MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072988814 · doi:10.1016/s1836-9553(11)70009-1

Traditional Chinese Acupuncture was not superior to sham acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis but delivering treatment with high expectations of improvement was superior to delivering treatment with neutral expectations

2011· letter· en· W2072988814 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcupuncturePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Traditional Chinese medicineVisual analogue scaleAlternative medicineClinical trialRheumatologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: What are the comparative effects of Traditional Chinese Acupuncture (TCA) and sham acupuncture for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) when controlling for the effect of the acupuncturists' communication styles. DESIGN: A nested 2-stage randomised clinical trial, where patients were randomised to 1 of 3 style groups, waiting list, high expectations, or neutral expectations, and nested within style, TCA, or sham acupuncture. SETTING: A hospital general internal medicine department in Texas, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women over 49 years with knee OA according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria. Additional inclusion criteria were pain in the knee in the preceding 2 weeks, > 3/10 on a visual analogue scale, no prior treatment with acupuncture, stable treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, or glucosamine. Exclusion criterion was intraarticular injections in the knee in the previous 2 months. Randomisation of 560 participants allocated 238 to the high expectations group, 242 to the neutral expectations group, and 80 to the waiting list group. INTERVENTIONS: Six acupuncturists licensed in traditional Chinese medicine carried out the intervention. For the communication style intervention, providers conveyed high expectations of improvement, by using positive utterances such as 'I think this will work for you', while neutral expectations were conveyed with uncertainty utterances such as 'It may or may not work for you'. For the acupuncture intervention the procedure and specific points were standardised by a panel consisting of the acupuncturists in each of the 2 arms: TCA points on the basis of clinical practice, and sham points outside the relevant meridians. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were Joint-Specific Multidimensional Assessment of Pain (J-MAP), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale, and Satisfaction with Knee Procedure (SKIP) measured at 4 weeks, 6 weeks (end of treatment), and 3 months. RESULTS: 527 (94%) participants completed the study. There were no significant differences between the TCA and sham groups in any of the outcome measures. Patients in the high expectations communication style group had statistically significant improvements in pain (J-MAP) and satisfaction (SKIP) compared with the neutral group. Mean differences (95% CI) at 3 months follow up were 0.4 (0.1 to 0.7) for J-MAP (1 to 7 scale), and 0.2 (0.03 to 0.3) for SKIP (1 to 5 scale). CONCLUSION: In patients with knee OA, needling of meridian points was not more effective than the use of sham points, whereas acupuncturists' communication styles had a small but statistically significant effect on pain reduction and satisfaction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it