Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) compared with those of topical placebo, DMSO vehicle and oral diclofenac for knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are considered safe, their long-term efficacy for osteoarthritis has been suspect. We conducted a 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial of topical diclofenac (TDiclo) in a vehicle solution containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in 775 subjects with radiologically confirmed, symptomatic primary osteoarthritis of the knee. This 5-arm study compared TDiclo with a placebo solution, the DMSO vehicle, oral diclofenac (ODiclo) and the combination of TDiclo+ODiclo for relieving the signs and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Subjects applied study solution, 40 drops four times daily, and took one study tablet daily for 12 weeks. Co-primary efficacy variables were WOMAC pain and physical function and a patient overall health assessment. Secondary variables were WOMAC stiffness and patient global assessment (PGA) of the knee osteoarthritis. TDiclo was superior to placebo for pain (-6.0 vs. -4.7, P=0.015), physical function (-15.8 vs. -12.3, P=0.034), overall health (-0.95 vs. -0.37, P<0.0001), and PGA (-1.36 vs. -1.01, P=0.016), and was superior to DMSO vehicle for all efficacy variables. No significant difference was observed between DMSO vehicle and placebo or between TDiclo and ODiclo. The commonest adverse event associated with TDiclo was dry skin (18.2%). Fewer digestive system and laboratory abnormalities were observed with TDiclo than with ODiclo. Addition of TDiclo to ODiclo did not increase the incidence of systemic adverse events. TDiclo in DMSO vehicle is an effective treatment option for knee osteoarthritis with efficacy similar to, but tolerability better than ODiclo. DMSO vehicle was no more efficacious than placebo.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".