Comparison of the efficacy between conventional moxibustion and smoke-free moxibustion on knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional moxibustion is a representative non-drug intervention in traditional Chinese medicine, and it has been reported to produce encouraging results and benefits in relieving symptoms and improving the quality of life for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in previous clinical trials and systematic reviews. Given that increasing concerns on the safety of generated smoke from conventional moxibustion have received much attention, smoke-free moxibustion is regarded as a potential alternative. However, whether smoke-free moxibustion would display a similar efficacy to that of conventional moxibustion still remains unclear. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial attempts to investigate the difference of efficacy between conventional moxibustion and smoke-free moxibustion in patients with KOA. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 138 eligible participants with KOA will be randomly allocated to two groups (conventional moxibustion group and smoke-free moxibustion group) in seven hospitals in China. Participants will receive 12 sessions of moxibustion treatment at three acupoints (EX-LE4, ST35, and ST36) over a period of 4 weeks (3 sessions per week). A smoke-removing device is placed at the top of the moxibustion device for the smoke-free moxibustion group (n = 69), while the conventional moxibustion group (n = 69) is treated with traditional moxibustion. The primary outcome measure will be the change of the global scale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from the baseline to 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include the visual analog scale VASand Patient Global Assessment scores. Follow-up measurements will be performed on the 8th and 12th weeks after random allocation. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to providing a solid foundation for the selection of moxibustion in clinical application as well as future research in moxibustion therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02772055 . Registered on 12 May 2016.
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 | 0.041 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.006 |
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".