The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Quality of Life in Patients With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices was common among patients with osteoarthritis (OA) since the patients experienced severe problems. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of CAM use and quality of life in pre-arthroplasty patients. This study was designed as a descriptive, consecutive survey of pre-arthroplasty patients due to hip and knee OA. Data were collected by the Personal Information Form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index, and EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scale. Logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors of CAM usage; 74.4% of the patients used CAM methods. The most frequently used methods of CAM were biologically based herbal therapies. All patients indicated that they did not disclose CAM methods they used to their physicians. The median EQ-5D-5L index value of the patients was 0.08 and the median WOMAC score was 96.8. Furthermore, patients with right knee OA were found to have a higher risk of using CAM. This study demonstrated that communication between patients and health care professionals is generally poor, and there is an urgent need to develop patient education to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of using CAM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".