Comparison of the Effectiveness of Six and Two Acupuncture Point Regimens in Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Randomised Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although substantial data have supported the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA), the number of points used has varied. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of six and two acupuncture points in the treatment of knee OA. METHODS: A randomised trial of knee OA patients was conducted. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 35. The "six point group" received treatment at six acupuncture points, ST35, EX-LE4 (Neixiyan), ST36, SP9, SP10 and ST34, while the "two point group" received treatment at just the first pair of points, ST35 and EX-LE4. Both groups received twice weekly electroacupuncture on 10 occasions. Electrical stimulation was carried out at low-frequency of 3 Hz to all points, with the intensity as high as tolerable. Both groups were allowed to take a 200 mg celecoxib capsule per day for intolerable pain. Patients were assessed at baseline, week 5, week 9 and week 13, using a Thai language version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Global assessment of change after 10 treatments was also recorded. RESULTS: Acupuncture at both six and two acupuncture points was associated with significant improvement. Mean total WOMAC score at weeks 5 and 13 of patients in both groups showed no significant difference statistically (p = 0.75 and p = 0.51). Moreover, the number of celecoxib capsules taken, global assessment of global change and body weight change of both groups also showed no statistical difference. CONCLUSION: This evidence suggests that electroacupuncture to two local points may be sufficient to treat knee OA, but in view of some limitations to this study further research is necessary before this can be stated conclusively.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".