Evaluation of efficacy and safety of a novel lipogel containing diclofenac: A randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind clinical trial in patients with signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals is the prime concern of every osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. Chronic administration of NSAIDs, especially in case of geriatrics, through oral route tend to compromise the patient's safety, whereas topical treatments are not found to be effective owing their poor ability to deliver drug molecules.Thus, the present study deals with a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial conducted on patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) for comparing the performance of a novel topical gel (liposomal gel) of diclofenac with a placebo and a marketed gel. METHODS: The patients were treated and evaluated for 6 weeks as per the Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index for OA. Patients were also observed for any adverse events. All the results were analyzed statistically using Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Student's t-test at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Patients treated with liposomal gel showed statistically significantly improvements in treatment in comparison to the other tested formulations. All the treatments were found to be well tolerated with no report of adverse event. The results unequivocally demonstrated the superiority of the diclofenac liposomal gel, in the relieving the symptoms of OA of the knee, in comparison to placebo and marketed gel. CONCLUSION: From above results it was revealed that the drug in liposome have higher therapeutic potential. Thus, this can be a safe and effective option for the management of chronic OA especially for geriatric patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".