Effects of dry cupping on pain, function and quality of life in women with knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a sham-controlled randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is the most common cause of pain and disability worldwide. Dry cupping has been used as non-pharmacological approach to control pain and improve physical function. However, there is a lack of high-quality scientific evidence regarding its effects on this condition. This protocol describes a sham-controlled, randomised and simple blind study that aims to evaluate the effect of dry cupping on pain, function and quality of life in women with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Sixty-two women diagnosed with KOA, based on American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria, and aged from 50 to 75 years, will be randomly distributed into two groups (31 per group): real and sham dry cupping. Both applications will occur with acrylic cups around the knee. The intervention will last 15 min, two times a week over six consecutive weeks, for a total of 12 sessions. Both groups will be assessed at four different times: before the intervention (T0), after 3 weeks intervention (T3), at the end of the protocol (T6) and 4 weeks after the interventions (follow-up: T10). The primary outcome will be pain intensity (Numerical Pain Rating Scale), and secondary outcomes will be knee-related health status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), functional capacity (8-step stair climb test, 40-metre fast-paced walk test and 30-second chair stand test), quality of life (Short-Form 36) and global perceived effect. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the UFRN/FACISA Ethics Committee (number 3.737.688). The study results will be disseminated to the participants and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04331158.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".