Efficacy of 0.0125% Capsaicin Patch at Acupuncture Point for Pain Relief in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To study the efficacy of 0.0125% capsaicin patch at acupuncture point for pain relief in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted during September 2014to March 2015 Sixty-two ambulatory patients over 50 years of age with a diagnosis of knee OA were included. All enrolled patients had a pain score of 4-7 out of 10. Participants were randomized into either the treatment (capsaicin, n=31) or control (placebo, n=31) group. Interventions: Capsaicin vs. placebo patch at ST34 (1), SP10 (2), ST35 (3), EX-LE4 (Neixiyan) (4), ST36 (5), and SP9 (6) acupuncture points for 4 weeks. Main outcome measure: Pain subscale of modified Thai version of Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after treatment. Results: Pain subscale of the modified Thai version of WOMAC showed no significant difference between groups at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after treatment. After 2 weeks of treatment, the pain subscale score in the treatment group was significantly decreased from baseline (p<0.001). After 4 weeks of treatment, the pain subscale score in the placebo group was significantly decreased from baseline (p<0.006). Conclusion: Capsaicin patch at acupuncture point for pain relief in knee OA yielded no significant difference between groups. However, significant pain relief from baseline was observed in the treatment group after 2 weeks of treatment and in the placebo group after 4 weeks of treatment. Further study with higher capsaicin concentration and/or larger size patch should be considered.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".