Efficacy and safety of Shaoyang Xibi decoction in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multi-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To observe the efficacy and safety of Shaoyang Xibi decoction (SYXBD) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and to verify that the theory of ""Shaoyang dominating bone"" in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) can be applied to KOA treatment. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to two groups: SYXBD (treatment group, n = 66) and Meloxicam (control group, n = 66). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were used to assess efficacy before the treatment and 8 weeks after the treatment. RESULTS: Baseline data before the treatment between the two groups were similar. The WOMAC scores significantly decreased and the SF-36 scores significantly increased after 8- week treatment in both groups compared with before the treatment (P < 0.05). SYXBD significantly decreased pain scores (P < 0.001), physical function scores (P < 0.001) and the total scores (P < 0.001) in WOMAC compared to Meloxicam. SYXBD significantly improved physical function (P = 0.021), bodily pain (P = 0.002) and general health (P = 0.014), with no significant difference in role emotional (P = 0.053), role physical (P = 0.517), vitality (P = 0.241), social function (P = 0.712) and mental health (P = 0.800) in SF-36 compared to Meloxicam. No adverse events were reported in the treatment group while 13 adverse events happened in the control group during the study. CONCLUSION: SYXBD, prepared based on the theory of ""Shaoyang dominating bone"", has a better curative efficay and safety in patients with KOA compared with Meloxicam. The TCM theory of ""Shaoyang dominating bone"" may be useful in KOA treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".