A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee: Effects of patient‐provider communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of traditional Chinese acupuncture (TCA), and the role of placebo effects elicited by acupuncturists' behavior has not been elucidated. We conducted a 3-month randomized clinical trial in patients with knee osteoarthritis to compare the efficacy of TCA with sham acupuncture and to examine the effects of acupuncturists' communication styles. METHODS: Acupuncturists were trained to interact in 1 of 2 communication styles: high or neutral expectations. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 style groups, waiting list, high, or neutral, and nested within style, TCA or sham acupuncture twice a week over 6 weeks. Sham acupuncture was performed in nonmeridian points with shallow needles and minimal stimulation. Primary outcome measures were Joint-Specific Multidimensional Assessment of Pain (J-MAP), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Patients (n = 455) received treatment (TCA or sham) and 72 controls were included. No statistically significant differences were observed between TCA or sham acupuncture, but both groups had significant reductions in J-MAP (-1.1, -1.0, and -0.1, respectively; P < 0.001) and WOMAC pain (-13.7, -14, and -1.7, respectively; P < 0.001) compared with the waiting group. Statistically significant differences were observed in J-MAP pain reduction and satisfaction, favoring the high expectations group. In the TCA and sham groups, 52% and 43%, respectively, thought they had received TCA (κ = 0.05), suggesting successful blinding. CONCLUSION: TCA was not superior to sham acupuncture. However, acupuncturists' styles had significant effects on pain reduction and satisfaction, suggesting that the analgesic benefits of acupuncture can be partially mediated through placebo effects related to the acupuncturist's behavior.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".