Double blind randomized placebo control trial of controlled release codeine in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain is the cardinal feature of osteoarthritis (OA), and with advancing disease there is loss of function and increasing pain even at times of joint rest. Few studies have evaluated the role of opioid analgesics in treating the pain of OA. METHODS: This randomized, double blind, parallel group study compared the efficacy and safety of a 12 hourly controlled release codeine formulation (Codeine Contin) with placebo in patients with chronic pain due to OA of the hips and/or knees. The 4 week treatment period, following an analgesic washout phase of 2-7 days, included weekly clinic evaluations, at which the dose was escalated as appropriate, and daily patient diary completion. Pain (daily), stiffness, and physical function (weekly) were assessed using the multidimensional, self-administered WOMAC (visual analog scale version) questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-six eligible patients completed the study. The mean initial and final daily doses of controlled release codeine were 50 mg every 12 h at baseline and 159 mg every 12 h at the final assessment. All variables in the efficacy analysis indicated superiority of controlled release codeine over placebo. The WOMAC pain scale showed an improvement of 44.8% over baseline in the controlled release codeine group compared with 12.3% taking placebo (p = 0.0004). For the WOMAC stiffness and physical function scales the improvements over baseline on controlled release codeine were 47.7% and 49.3%, respectively compared with 17.0% and 17.0%, respectively, with placebo (p = 0.003; p = 0.0007). Controlled release codeine was also significantly better than placebo on measures of sleep quality and requirement for supplemental acetaminophen. CONCLUSION: Single entity controlled release codeine is an effective treatment for pain due to OA of the hip or knee.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".