Efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment as an adjunctive therapy after knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a surgical procedure that is being increasingly performed as a result of population aging and the increased average human life expectancy in South Korea. Consistent with the growing number of TKR procedures, the number of patients seeking acupuncture for relief from adverse effects, effective pain management, and the enhancement of rehabilitative therapy effects and bodily function after TKR has also been increasing. Thus, an objective examination of the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of acupuncture treatments is essential. The aim of this study is to verify the hypothesis that the concurrent use of acupuncture treatment and usual care after TKR is more effective, safe, and cost-effective for the relief of TKR symptoms than usual care therapy alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an open-label, parallel, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial that includes 50 patients with TKR. After screening the patients and receiving informed consent, the patients are divided into two groups (usual care + acupuncture group and usual care group); the patients will then undergo TKR surgery and will be hospitalized for 2 weeks. The patients will receive a total of 8 acupuncture treatments over 2 weeks after surgery and will be followed up at 3, 4, and 12 weeks after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome is assessed using the Korean version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (K-WOMAC), and the secondary outcome is measured using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Risk of Fall, and Range of Motion (ROM). Moreover, the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is adopted as a primary economic outcome for economic evaluation, and the cost per NRS is adopted as a secondary economic outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has received complete ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital (IS17ENSS0063). We intend to submit the results to a peer-reviewed journal and/or conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03633097.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".