Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine rehabilitation program in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common joint disease worldwide, and the main cause of pain and disability in the elderly. Due to increased aging and rates of obesity of the global population, the number of patients with KOA is expected to increase. To reduce the burden of KOA, effective and safe interventions should be developed to reduce pain and improve range of motion, functionality, and quality of life. The aim of the proposed randomized controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) rehabilitation therapy in the treatment of KOA. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial will include a total of 200 patients with KOA. The enrolled patients will be randomly divided into the experimental group (n=100) and control group (n=100). The experimental group will receive basic treatment plus TCM rehabilitation therapy, while the control group will receive basic treatment plus physiotherapy regimen. Primary endpoints will include clinical efficacy outcomes, visual analog scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, and Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale score. The data will help determine whether TCM rehabilitation therapy is beneficial for the treatment of KOA. DISCUSSION: The results will provide high-quality guidance for the current clinical treatment of KOA, and provide patients with more options for symptom relief. The findings from this study may provide updated evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of TCM for patients with KOA.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".