Acupuncture versus Homeopathy as A Complementary Therapy in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a major cause of disability with treatment focused only on control of symptoms.Despite the popularity of both acupuncture and homeopathy, evidence of their efficacy for treatment of osteoarthritis remainscontroversy. Aim of the Work: To assess the efficacy of Acupuncture compared with Homeopathy and with the usualconservative treatment (analgesics and physiotherapy) in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Patients and Methods: Seventy-fivepatients who had had chronic pain for at least 6 months due to osteoarthritis of the knee (American College of Rheumatology[ACR] criteria and Kellgren-Lawrence score of 2), all continue on their conservative therapy remained unchanged all-throughthe study. They were divided into three groups; Group I (Acupuncture group): Included 25 patients who were subjected toacupuncture at the standardized acu-point stimulation treatment without electrical stimulation. Sessions were done twice weeklyfrom base line visit to week six. Group II (Homeopathy group): Included 25 patients who were given oral doses of homeopathicremedies that were commonly used for the treatment of osteoarthritis (Arnica Montana, Ruta graveolans and Rhustoxicodendron). Group III (Control group): Included 25 patients who continued only on their pre-study medications .Painintensity on visual analog scale (VAS), the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score and the Western Ontario andMcMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score were recorded for each patient before the beginning of treatment,during each visit and at the end of the sessions. The results were statistically analyzed. Results: Pain has improved statisticallyon both VAS and pain subscale of the WOMAC in group I. Also, the number of tender points decreased significantly and therewas significant decrease in the number of patients receiving analgesics for pain control at the end of the study (p<0.05). Inaddition, a statistically significant improvement in knee function was detected (p<0.05) on the total WOMAC score for kneeosteoarthritis and both the function and stiffness subscales of the WOMAC, in addition a statistically significant decrease in kneeswelling (knee circumference) was detected in this group, as well as the patient quality of life assessed by the HAQ score incomparison to the control group. There was a statistically significant improvement in the total WOMAC score, both VAS andpain subscale of the WOMAC, number of tender points in group II. Moreover, a significant decrease in the number of patientsreceiving analgesics for pain control was reported in this group (p<0.05).However, the decrease in knee swelling assessed by theknee circumference was statistically insignificant in this group. In addition, we found that the improvement of pain and functionwas statistically significant (p<0.05) in comparison to the control group (group III). Conclusions: Both Acupuncture andHomeopathy were effective in reducing pain and improving function of the knee but acupuncture was significantly moreeffective than homeopathy. Moreover, Acupuncture significantly decreased the knee circumference while homeopathy did notdecrease it significantly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".