MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035410674 · doi:10.1155/2020/8707256

Efficacy and Safety of Tongning Gel for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double‐Blinded, Parallel, Placebo‐Controlled, Clinical Trial

2020· article· en· W3035410674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ye Zhao, Zhi Bi Shen, Ji Rong Ge, Wengang Liu, Jun Yang, Cheng Jian He, Min Lü, Lin Shen, Hong Yin, Yong Qiang Chen, Zhi Bin Li, Qing Sun, Li Xie, Hong Sheng Zhan

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai University of Traditional Chinese MedicineNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWOMACMedicineOsteoarthritisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyClinical trialDouble blindedInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective . To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Tongning Gel (TNG) compared to placebo‐controlled (PC) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods . A multicentre, randomized, double‐blinded, parallel, placebo‐controlled, clinical trial was performed in 576 patients (432 patients in the TNG group, 144 patients in the PC group), and 1 in the experimental group withdrew due to nonuse of drug. Patients were randomized to receive TNG or PC applied to knee skin at 3g per time, 2 times per day, which lasted for 3 weeks. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was used to evaluate the primary efficacy of TNG and WOMAC stiffness and physical function and total scores were used to evaluate the secondary efficacy of TNG. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis. This trial has been registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. CTR20131276 ). Results . Primary efficiency outcome: there were significant differences in the decreased value of WOMAC pain score between two groups ( P < 0.05), and the decreased value of WOMAC pain score in the TNG group were better than those in the PC group ( P < 0.05). Secondary efficiency outcome: the WOMAC total score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, and the decrease of the above indexes of the two groups of patients after treatment were statistically significant ( P < 0.05), and the improvement of the above indexes in the TNG group was better than that of the PC group ( P < 0.05). Safety Evaluation . A total of 42 adverse events were reported by 29 patients: 25 adverse events reported by 16 patients (3.71%) in the experimental group and 17 adverse events were reported by 13 patients (9.03%) in the control group. And 8 adverse reactions were reported by 6 patients including 2 adverse reactions by 2 patients (0.46%) in the experimental group and 6 adverse reactions by 4 patients (2.78%) in the control group. Two cases of significant adverse events occurred in the experimental group. Both groups had one serious adverse event, respectively, which were not relevant to the intervention. Conclusion . These results of the trial demonstrate that TNG is superior to placebo in the treatment of patients with KOA, and TNG can improve other symptoms of KOA, such as stiffness and physical function. TNG is safe for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis as a whole.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207