Duloxetine combined with intra-articular injection versus intra-articular injection alone for pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intra-articular (IA) injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroid (CS) is a common treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. As a drug treatment for patients with depression, duloxetine has been shown in many studies to effectively relieve the pain of OA and improve function of the knee joint. However, evidence regarding the efficacy of IA injection of HA+CS combined with duloxetine for pain management in patients with OA of the knee is lacking. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that IA injection of HA+CS combined with duloxetine could achieve pain management superior to that of IA injection of HA+CS alone in patients experiencing knee OA pain. METHODS: This study will adopt a prospective, randomised, open-label blind endpoint study design. In total, 150 patients with OA of the knee will be enrolled in the study. The participants will be randomly allocated to receive either a single IA injection of HA+CS combined with duloxetine or a single IA injection of HA+CS alone, and both groups will complete a 24-week follow-up to assess pain and functional improvements. The primary outcome measure is the change in the weekly mean of the 24 hours average pain scores from baseline to the end of 24 weeks in patients with OA of the knee, and the secondary outcomes include the response to treatment, changes from baseline in the brief pain inventory, improvement in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index scores, patient global impression of improvement scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and adverse events during the 24-week follow-up. The data will be analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the Beijing Tiantan Hospital (approval number: KY 2019-086-02). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be presented at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04117893; Pre-results.
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 | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.011 |
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".