Effectiveness of Leech Therapy in Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leech therapy was commonly used in traditional medicine for treating localized pain. Clinically significant pain relief after leech therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee has been demonstrated by preliminary data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of leech therapy for symptomatic relief of osteoarthritis of the knee. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient department for integrative medicine of an academic teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 51 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee (leech therapy: 24 patients, mean age [+/-SD], 62.5 +/- 10.2 years; topical diclofenac therapy: 27 patients, mean age [+/-SD], 65.5 +/- 6.7 years). INTERVENTION: A single treatment with 4 to 6 locally applied leeches (leech therapy group) or a 28-day topical diclofenac regimen (control group). MEASUREMENTS: Mean of the pain, function, and stiffness subscores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and physical sum score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey with group comparisons at days 3, 7, 28, and 91. RESULTS: The primary end point, pain at day 7, was reduced from a mean (+/-SD) of 53.5 +/- 13.7 to 19.3 +/- 12.2 after leech therapy compared with 51.5 +/- 16.8 to 42.4 +/- 19.7 with topical diclofenac (estimated group difference, -23.9 [95% CI, -32.8 to -15.1]; P < 0.001). Although the difference between group pain scores was no longer significant after day 7, differences for function, stiffness, and total symptoms remained significant in favor of leech therapy until the end of study and for quality of life until day 28. Results were not affected by outcome expectation. CONCLUSIONS: Leech therapy helps relieve symptoms in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The potential of leech therapy for treating osteoarthritis and the pharmacologic properties of leech saliva remain to be clarified.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".