Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Concentrations of Diclofenac Sodium Phonophoresis (1.16% vs 2.32%) in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: a Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The objective of the present study is to compare the efficacy of two different concentrations of diclofenac sodium phonophoresis (DSPH) (1.16% vs 2.32%) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIAL AND METHODS A randomized, double-blind, controlled design was applied. Ninety patients (mean age± SD, 59.98 ± 8.89 years) who had Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grades II to III knee OA were randomly allocated into three groups; 1.16% DSPH, 2.32% DSPH, TUS (30 in each group). Each patient was treated five sessions per week for two weeks. A 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for usual pain and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were evaluated before and after treatment in all groups. RESULTS The VAS pain and WOMAC scores were significantly improved after treatment in all groups (p < 0.05). The 2.32% DSPH showed more significant effects than the 1.16% DSPH, both in improving WOMAC- pain and physical function scores (p = 0.020, p = 0.008) and reducing the VAS pain measure, although it did not reach the level of significance (p = 0.077). The 2.32% DSPH was superior to the TUS, both in reducing the VAS pain measure (p < 0.001) and in improving WOMAC-pain, stiffness, physical function and total scores (p = 0.022, p = 0.016, p < 0.001, p < 0.001 respectively). 1.16% DSPH significantly reduced stiffness and physical function scores compared with TUS (p = 0.042, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS DSPH and TUS are effective treatments for knee OA. Our results indicated that 2.32% DSPH produces additional benefits to functional improvement and pain reduction compared with 1.16% DSPH in K-L grades II to III knee OA. Key words: diclofenac sodium, knee osteoarthritis, phonophoresis, therapeutic ultrasound, topical formulation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".