Comparative study of efficacy and safety of tapentadol versus etoricoxib in mild to moderate grades of chronic osteorthritis of knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic osteoarthritis of knee is very commonly encountered in clinical practice. Pain relief and restoration of physical function are the targets of therapy. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of tapentadol with etoricoxib in the management of osteoarthritis of knee. This is a randomised, open labelled, controlled study in which patients received either tablet tapentadol (100 mg twice daily) or etoricoxib (30 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. Follow-up was done after 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th weeks of initiation of treatment and also after 2 weeks of treatment completion. Assessment of improvement in pain perception on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) sub-score for stiffness and physical function were performed. 108 patients receiving tapentadol and 110 patients receiving etoricoixb were analysed on Intention to Treat basis. Steady improvement was seen in VAS and WOMAC scores in both the groups, though there was no significant difference between the groups. Clinical Global Impression measured by physician showed significant difference between groups with greater number of patients experiencing at least satisfactory response at the end of the study in the tapentadol group (p = 0.036). The total number of adverse events was less with tapentadol than etoricoxib. Tapentadol is as effective as etoricoxib in the management of mild to moderate grades of chronic osteoarthritis of knee with lower incidences of adverse effects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".