Efficacy of Pharmacopuncture Using Root Bark of Ulmus davidiana Planch in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether pharmacopuncture is a clinically effective and safe method for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Patients were recruited between August 2008 and December 2008 at the Ilsan Hospital associated with Dongguk University. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The experimental group (n = 30) received pharmacopuncture using root bark of Ulmus davidiana Planch (UDP) twice a week for 6 weeks; the control group (n = 30) received normal saline injections. Fifty-three patients completed the trial. After the seventh treatment, we found that UDP pharmacopuncture was more effective in pain improvement using a Visual Analog Scale than was normal saline injection. However, the two interventions were not significantly different as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities pain score and total pain scores, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and Korean Health Assessment Questionnaire. No subject showed any serious adverse effects. The effects of pharmacopuncture treatment were a combination of placebo, needle stimulation, mechanical effect of the solution, and a chemical effect of UDP. However, normal saline used as the control intervention displayed the first three effects, and thus its effect was not inert. This may have influenced the results of the trial, which was statistically insignificant between the two groups, except following the seventh treatment session.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".