[YANG's pricking-cupping therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a multi-center randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of YANG's pricking-cupping therapy for knee osteoar thritis (KOA). Methods This was a multi-center randomized parallel controlled trial. One hundred and seventy one patients with KOA were randomly allocated to a pricking-cupping group (89 cases) and a conventional acu puncture group (82 cases). Neixiyan (EX-LE 4), Dubi (ST 35) and ashi points were selected in the two groups. Patients in the pricking-cupping group were treated with YANG's pricking-cupping therapy; the seven-star needles were used to perform pricking at acupoints, then cupping was used until slight bleeding was observed. Patients in the conventional acupuncture group were treated with semi-standardized filiform needle therapy. The treatment was given for 4 weeks (from a minimum of 5 times to a maximum of 10 times). The follow-up visit was 4 weeks. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) were adopted for the efficacy assessments. RESULTS: The pain score, stiffness score, physical function score and total score of WOMAC were all reduced after 4-week treatment and during follow-up visit in the two groups (all P<0. 0001). Except that the difference of stiffness score between the two groups was not significant after 4-week treatment (P>0. 05), each score and total score of WOMAC in the pricking-cupping group were lower than those in the conventional acupuncture group after 4-week treatment and during follow-up visit (P<0. 0001, P<0. 01). After 2-week treatment, 4-week treatment and during follow-up visit, the VAS was all reduced compared with that before treatment (all P<0. 0001) ; with the increase of the treatment, the reducing trend of VAS was more significant (P<0. 0001). The scores of VAS in the pricking-cupping group were lower than those in the conventional acupuncture group after 4-week treatment and during follow-up visit (P < 0. 01, P <0. 0001). CONCLUSION The YANG's pricking-cupping and conventional acupuncture therapy can both significantly improve knee joint pain and function in patients with KOA, which are relatively safe. The pricking cupping therapy is superior to conventional acupuncture with the identical selection of acupoints.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".