Efficacy and Safety of Zhuanggu Joint Capsules in Combination with Celecoxib in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic joint disease that manifests as knee pain as well as different degrees of lower limb swelling, stiffness, and movement disorders. The therapeutic goal is to alleviate or eliminate pain, correct deformities, improve or restore joint functions, and improve the quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zhuanggu joint capsules combined with celecoxib and the benefit of treatment with Zhuanggu alone for KOA. METHODS: This multi-center, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel controlled trial, started from December 2011 to May 2014, was carried out in 6 cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Changchun, Chengdu, and Nanjing. A total of 432 patients with KOA were divided into three groups (144 cases in each group). The groups were treated, respectively, with Zhuanggu joint capsules combined with celecoxib capsule simulants, Zhuanggu joint capsules combined with celecoxib capsules, and celecoxib capsules combined with Zhuanggu joint capsule simulants for 4 weeks consecutively. The improvement of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and the decreased rates in each dimension of WOMAC were evaluated before and after the treatment. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons of quantitative indices were performed. Statistically significant differences were evaluated with pairwise comparisons using Chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test) and an inspection level of α = 0.0167. RESULTS: Four weeks after treatment, the total efficacies of Zhuanggu group, combination group, and celecoxib group were 65%, 80%, and 64%, respectively, with statistically significant differences among the three groups (P = 0.005). Intergroup pairwise comparisons showed that the total efficacy of the combination group was significantly higher than that of the Zhuanggu (P = 0.005) and celecoxib (P = 0.003) groups. The difference between the latter two groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.0167). Four weeks after discontinuation, the efficacies of the three groups were 78%, 95%, and 65%, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.0001). Intergroup pairwise comparisons revealed that the efficacy of the combination group was significantly better than that of the Zhuanggu and the celecoxib groups (P < 0.0001). The difference between the latter two groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.0167). The incidences of adverse events in Zhuanggu group, combination group, and celecoxib group were 8.5%, 8.5%, and 11.1%, respectively, with insignificant differences (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Zhuanggu joint capsules alone or combined with celecoxib showed clinical efficacy in the treatment of KOA. The safety of Zhuanggu joint capsules alone or combined with celecoxib was acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IPR-15007267; http://www.medresman.org/uc/project/projectedit.aspx?proj=1364.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".