The effect of mud therapy on pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effect of mud therapy on pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A detailed search of PubMed®/MEDLINE® was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies published before 9 March 2013 that compared mud therapy with control group treatments in patients with knee OA. RESULTS: A quantitative meta-analysis of seven studies (410 patients) was performed. There was a significant difference between the groups in the visual analogue scale pain score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.73) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score (SMD -0.30), with differences in favour of mud therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Mud therapy is a favourable option for pain relief in patients with knee OA. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials need to be conducted to explore this issue further and to confirm this conclusion.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".