Meta-analysis Comparing Celecoxib with Diclofenac Sodium in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from online databases comparing the efficacy of celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in the treatment of KOA were retrieved. The main outcomes included the treatment effect, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and complication rate. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool in Review Manager 5.3.5 was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies (N = 2,350) were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that celecoxib reduced pain more effectively than diclofenac sodium in patients with KOA, as evaluated by the VAS score. In addition, celecoxib has certain advantages in terms of better treatment effects and greater reductions in the ESR, CRP level, and complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib is superior to diclofenac sodium in the treatment of KOA. However, well-designed and high-quality RCTs are still needed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".