The efficacy and safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A in painful knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A in painful knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: The EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Botulinum Toxin Type A in the treatment of painful knee osteoarthritis. The references of included literature were also searched. RESULTS: Five articles involving 5 RCTs including 314 patients were included in this analysis. There was a significant difference between Botulinum Toxin Type A and placebo in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain scale and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire score in both the short-term (≤4 weeks) and long-term (≥8 weeks) treatment period. There were no serious adverse events in the Botulinum Toxin Type A groups. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that Botulinum Toxin Type A is effective and safe in the painful knee OA treatment. However, high-quality randomized controlled studies are still needed to further confirm our findings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".