Duloxetine for the management of pain in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: randomised placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: pain is the leading symptom of osteoarthritis (OA) and is often chronic in nature, leading to significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. Duloxetine, a selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor has been demonstrated to have a centrally acting analgesic effect. OBJECTIVES: the aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of duloxetine in reducing pain in older adults with knee OA. METHODS: totally, 288 patients aged 65 years and above with primary knee OA were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomised 1:1. Totally, 144 received 60 mg/day of duloxetine HCL and 144 received placebo for 16 weeks. Outcome measures included pain reduction and improvement in physical functioning scores. Pain was assessed using the visual analogue pain scale (VAS; 0-100 mm). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were used to assess function. RESULTS: two-hundred and seventy four of the 288 patients completed the study. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain and a significant improvement in WOMAC scores at 16 weeks in the duloxetine group versus the placebo group. No serious side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: the findings of the present study provide evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in reducing pain and subsequently improving function in older adults with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01425827.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".