Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of dexibuprofen and celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Osteoarthritis (OA) is often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). OBJECTIVE: This clinical trial aimed to assess directly the relative therapeutic efficacy of the isolated active enantiomer of ibuprofen, named dexibuprofen (S(+)-ibuprofen) in a special crystal form, and the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in adults with OA of the hip. Moreover, the hypothesis that the tolerability/safety profile of dexibuprofen is comparable to celecoxib is to be tested. METHODS: The investigation was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, active controlled clinical trial, conducted from January 2001 to February 2002 in 4 rehabilitation centers in Austria. 148 inpatients were randomly assigned to dexibuprofen 800 mg or celecoxib 200 mg daily. The primary criterion was the improvement in the Western Ontario and' McMasters osteoarthritis index (WOMAC OA index) after 15 days of therapy. RESULTS: Evaluation of the WOMAC OA index proved that dexibuprofen 400 mg b.i.d. is not inferior to celecoxib 100 mg b.i.d. with the Mann-Whitney estimator equal to 0.5129 and the corresponding lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval equal to 0.4409. The overall incidence of adverse drug reactions was 12.16% in the dexibuprofen group and 13.51% in the celecoxib group. 8.1% of patients on dexibuprofen and 9.5% on celecoxib suffered from gastrointestinal disorders. CONCLUSION: In the presented clinical trial dexibuprofen has at least equal efficacy and a comparable safety/tolerability profile as celecoxib in adult patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the hip.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".