MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109156797 · doi:10.1185/030079903125002469

A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis

2003· article· en· W2109156797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Zacher, Daniel Feldman, Roberto Gerli, David L. Scott, Sheng‐Mou Hou, Daniel Uebelhart, Ian W. Rodger, Zafer E. Ozturk

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtoricoxibMedicineTolerabilityDiclofenacOsteoarthritisWOMACClinical endpointAnesthesiaClinical trialPhysical therapyAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. METHODS: In this 6-week double-blind, active comparator controlled, parallel-group study eligible osteoarthritis patients were randomised to receive either etoricoxib 60 mg once daily (n = 256) or diclofenac 50 mg three times daily (n = 260). The primary study endpoint was the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Other endpoints included were the WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscales, and the Patient's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) questionnaire. Early efficacy was evaluated using WOMAC first question (pain walking on a flat surface) and PGART 4 h after the morning dose of each drug on days 1 and 2. Rescue medication (paracetamol) used was also recorded. The study was designed to show comparable efficacy between etoricoxib 60 mg once daily and diclofenac 50 mg three times daily with respect to the primary endpoint and was conducted outside the United States at 67 centres in 29 countries. RESULTS: Etoricoxib (60 mg once daily) was comparable in efficacy to diclofenac (150 mg daily) on all the above parameters. The one exception was in the assessment of early efficacy where etoricoxib demonstrated significantly greater benefit within 4 h of taking the first dose on the first day of therapy (p = 0.007) as evaluated by the percentage of patients with good or excellent (PGART) responses. The treatment effects of both drugs were similar by the time day 2 was reached and were sustained throughout the 6 weeks of therapy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib is clinically effective in the therapy of osteoarthritis providing a magnitude of effect comparable to that of the maximum recommended daily dose of diclofenac. The onset of clinical benefit with etoricoxib on day one is more rapid than that of diclofenac. Both drugs were generally well tolerated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207