The post‐operative analgesic efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib compared with placebo and naproxen after total knee or hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor in development for the treatment of chronic and acute pain. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind multicentre study enrolled 180 patients (aged 18-80 years) with moderate-to-severe pain (>or=2 on a 4-point categorical scale) within 48 h of unilateral total knee or total hip arthroplasty. Patients were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (n = 60), placebo (n = 60) or naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n = 60). The study consisted of a 12-h single-dose phase followed by a multiple-dose phase (up to 96 h or until discontinuation). The primary efficacy measure was the summed (time-weighted) pain intensity difference over 0-8 h after the first dose (SPID-8). RESULTS: Lumiracoxib and naproxen were comparable and both treatments were superior to placebo for the primary efficacy measure, SPID-8. Both treatments were generally similar and also superior to placebo for the secondary efficacy measures during both the single- and multiple-dose phases for up to 96 h. Both active treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Lumiracoxib is an effective alternative to traditional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of post-operative pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".