[Clinical efficacy comparison between electroacupuncture and meloxicam in the treatment of knee os- teoarthritis at the early and middle stage: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) at the early and middle stage between electroacupuncture (EA) and meloxicam. METHODS: Ninety patients of KOA at the early and middle stage were randomized into an EA group and a meloxicam group, 45 cases in each one. In the EA group, EA was applied to Dubi (ST 35), Neixiyan (EX-LE 4), Liangqiu (ST 34), Heding (EX-LE 2), Xuehai (SP 10), Yan- glingquan (GB 34) and Zusanli (ST 36); the needles were retained for 20 min and EA was applied once every two days. In the meloxicam group, the meloxicam tablets were prescribed for oral administration, 7. 5 mg, once a day. The treatment lasted for 6 weeks in the two groups. The Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, rectus femoris muscle tension, the 8-foot walking test and 5-time sit-to-stand test were adopted to observe and compare the effects in the two groups. RESULTS: After treatment, every item score in WOMAC was reduced after treatment (all P < 0.05), but the difference was not significant between the two groups (all P > 0.05). In the EA group, the rectus femoris tension after treatment was reduced as compared with that before treatment (P < 0.05) and the reducing result was much more apparent as compared with that in the meloxicam group (P < 0.05). For the 8-foot walking test and 5-time sit-to-stand test, the time was shortened after treatment in the two groups (all P < 0.05) and the result in the EA group was much more obvious than that in the meloxicam group (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both EA and meloxicam are effective in the treatment of KOA at the early and middle stage. EA improves rectus femoris tension and recovers the internal mechanics balance and the efficacy is better than that of meloxicam.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".