Acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis with sensitized acupoints: results from a pilot, feasibility randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although previous clinical studies suggest possible benefits of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the value of acupuncture at sensitized points is uncertain. We aimed to preliminarily assess the feasibility of performing a definitive randomized controlled trial to explore the effectiveness of acupuncture for KOA with highly sensitized acupoints. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, parallel, pilot trial, 36 participants with KOA were randomly assigned to receive acupuncture at highly sensitized acupoints (high-sensitization group) or at low/non-sensitized points (low/non-sensitization group) by a computer-generated random sequence. Both groups received three treatment sessions per week for four consecutive weeks (12 sessions in total). Assessments were performed at screening and at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after randomization. Primary feasibility outcomes were patient recruitment, retention rate, and adherence to group treatment. Secondary outcomes included the change of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score from baseline to 16 weeks, the change of Short Form (SF)-12 health survey score, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Patient recruitment of 36 patients took 2 months, achieving the recruitment target. Retention rates were similar between the treatment groups, 14 (77.8%) patients in the high-sensitization group completed the 16-week follow-up and compared to 14 (77.8%) patients in low/non-sensitization group, but the result was lower than expected. All patients received at least ten treatment sessions in total. The WOMAC total score and the pain, stiffness, and physical function score in the high-sensitization group were lower or very close to those in the control group at each assessment point. Similar results were observed on quality of life. No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: This trial has presented preliminary data on the feasibility of conducting a large trial to test the effectiveness of acupuncture at sensitized points in KOA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03008668. Registered on 26 December 2016-retrospectively registered.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".