Combination of Glucosamine Hydrochloride and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs versus Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Prospective,Randomized and Controlled Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To discuss the clinical efficacy of glucosamine combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs(NSAID) on the treatment of hip osteoarthritis.Methods From September 2011 to January 2012,198 patients with mild to moderate hip osteoarthritis were selected,and were divided into trial group and control group randomly.The patients in the trial group was medicated with glucosamine(750 mg,twice per day for 1 mouth) and ibuprofen(0.3 g,twice per day for 2 weeks),and the ones in the control group were with ibuprofen(0.3 g,twice per day for 2 weeks) only.Then the clinical results were evaluated by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) on week 0,2,4,8 and 12.And the adverse drug reaction were observe.Results The WOMAC score decreased from week 2 when compare to week 0 after treatment in both groups.But there was no significant difference between the trial and control group: week 0 WOMAC score(45.3 and 45.0,P=0.225),and week 2 WOMAC score(37.3 and 37.6,P=0.329).But the WOMAC score in control group began to ascend form week 4,however the WOMAC score in trial group decreased persistently.Total adverse reaction ratio was 7.0% in both groups while adverse reaction ratio was 9.5% in trial group.Conclusions The clinical symptoms of mild to moderate hip osteoarthritis can be effectively relieved by glucosamine combined with ibuprofen,and shows therapeutic effect after drug withdrawal.Ibuprofen has short-term improvement for the clinical symptoms of hip osteoarthritis,but the symptoms reoccur after drug withdrawal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".