The efficacy of topical red clover oil on knee osteoarthritis: A pilot prospective randomized triple‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A triple-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy of topical red clover oil (containing standardized red clover extract in olive oil) on knee osteoarthritis (OA). A total of 80 patients, 50-80 years old, with primary knee OA were randomly allocated to two groups. The study group used topical red clover oil and the control group used olive oil for 4 weeks (20 drops twice a day). Both groups adhered to nonpharmacological American College of Rheumatology recommendations and took meloxicam tablets during the study (0-8 weeks), and were followed up from Week 4 to 8. Efficacy measures were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). At baseline, both groups were homogeneous regarding demographic characteristics. In addition, they were asked about the side effects during the intervention. The results showed that the WOMAC score and its subscales of pain and stiffness and function scores and VAS significantly increased over time in both groups (p < .001). The study group showed a significant increase regarding pain (p = .001), function (p = .010), VAS (p < .001), and the WOMAC total score (p = .018). No serious drug side effects were observed. Red clover oil may have positive effects on symptoms of knee OA and can be considered as a complementary 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".