Comparison of clinical effectiveness and safety of newer nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients of osteoarthritis of knee joint: A randomized, prospective, open-label parallel-group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic progressive degenerative disease of weight-bearing joints and the leading cause of disability in elderly. Current medical management of OA is mostly palliative with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being the mainstay of therapy. Reports of gastrointestinal adverse effects with traditional NSAIDs and cardiovascular adverse effects associated with selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors have prompted the hunt for a better NSAID with no or minimal adverse effects. This study compares the clinical effectiveness and safety of newer NSAIDS etodolac and lornoxicam to diclofenac which has been a standard therapy in patients of OA of knee joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a randomized, prospective, open-label, parallel-group study conducted in 90 patients of OA of knee joint diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria. After obtaining the informed consent, they were randomized in three groups of 30 patients each who received tablet etodolac 400 mg b.i.d, tablet lornoxicam 8 mg b.i.d, and tablet diclofenac sodium 50 mg t.i.d, respectively. The duration of the study was 12 weeks. Data were tabulated and analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, and level of significance was determined by its P value. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, pain intensity and functional indices in terms of visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis score were significantly better (P < 0.05) in lornoxicam group as compared to etodolac or diclofenac group along with lesser rate of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that lornoxicam was more effective and better tolerated NSAID than etodolac and diclofenac in treatment of knee joint OA.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".