EFFICACY OF CELECOXIB VS NAPROXEN IN THE TREATMENT OF ANKLE SPRAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active adults commonly experience ankle sprain, resulting in pain, inflammation, ecchymosis, and swelling. Physicians often prescribe conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to treat ankle sprain and accelerate return to activity. In a recent clinical trial, celecoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor with platelet-sparing properties, was as effective as ibuprofen and better than placebo in reducing ankle sprain signs and symptoms. We hypothesized that celecoxib would be as effective as naproxen in ankle sprain. In an 8-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial, 396 adults with first or second degree inversion ankle sprain were treated with celecoxib 200 mg BID (n = 198) or naproxen 500 mg BID (n = 198). At baseline, patients had moderate-to-severe ankle pain on weight bearing [at least 45 mm on 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)]. Patients were mostly male (67%) with a mean age of 30 years. Injuries were sports- (54%) or non-sports-related and occurred within 48 hours of the first dose of study medication (mean duration, 23.2 hours). Covariate-adjusted analyses of the primary end points (Patient's Global Assessment and VAS) at Day 4 demonstrated that celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in improving signs and symptoms of ankle sprain. Both groups had a median of 5 days to return to normal function/activity or function improvement by at least 2 grades (5-point categorical scale).Table1Responders improved by ≥ 1 grade on 5-pt scale from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor); †p ≥ 0.51; ‡cel vs napr within 95% CI limits for noninferiority. Celecoxib is as effective as the maximum recommended dose of naproxen in treating pain of ankle sprains. Celecoxib, with its platelet-sparing properties and superior gastrointestinal tolerability, may offer an advantage over naproxen in managing ankle sprain injuries. Sponsored by Pharmacia Corp.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".