MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414370374 · doi:10.1002/acr.22753

Clinical Efficacy of Celecoxib Compared to Acetaminophen in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W2414370374 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Bedaiwi, İ̇smail Sarı, Dinny Wallis, Finbar O’Shea, David Salonen, Nigil Haroon, Ahmed Omar, Robert D. Inman

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineBASDAICelecoxibAnkylosing spondylitisLow back painAcetaminophenBack painRandomized controlled trialOswestry Disability IndexPhysical therapyAnesthesiaSacroiliac jointInternal medicineSurgeryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In this randomized controlled trial, we compared the effect of celecoxib and acetaminophen on pain and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scores in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: A total of 50 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were blindly randomized into 2 groups treated with celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) or acetaminophen (500 mg twice daily). Outcome measures included total back pain, nocturnal back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, the Short Form 36 health survey to assess physical and mental status, and patient global assessment. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index scores were also assessed before and after the therapy. The Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada scoring method was used to evaluate spinal MRI changes. RESULTS: Celecoxib showed a superior effect on total back pain, ODI, BASDAI, nocturnal back pain, and patient global assessment, compared to acetaminophen (P < 0.05). The number of patients with a significant change in back pain scales was higher in the celecoxib arm (ODI 34.8% versus 4.5%, nocturnal back pain 41.7% versus 9.1%, total back pain 33.3% versus 9.1%, and BASDAI 30.4% versus 9.1%; P < 0.01 for all). The responsiveness to celecoxib, calculated by Guyatt's Responsiveness Index, was 1.62, 1.28, 1.27, and 0.58 for the ODI, total back pain, BASDAI, and nocturnal back pain, respectively. The MRI scores for sacroiliac joints and spine showed no significant change with either treatment when compared with baseline values (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was superior efficacy of celecoxib compared with acetaminophen in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Inflammatory lesions of sacroiliac joints and spine are commonly seen in nonspecific low back pain, but these lesions did not change with either celecoxib or acetaminophen treatments and were not associated with clinical response to either agent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207