MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185485563 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s315956

Efficacy of Acupuncture-Related Therapy in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021· review· en· W3185485563 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineAcupunctureOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPhysical therapyAcupuncture therapyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is prevalent in middle-aged and elderly people. This condition negatively affects the quality of life of patients. Although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used to relieve symptoms associated with KOA, it is associated with many side effects. Acupuncture and moxibustion therapies have been applied in the treatment of KOA. However, the efficacy of various acupuncture and moxibustion treatments has not been compared. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the application of acupuncture and moxibustion in the treatment of KOA were searched in English databases and Chinese databases. Data were retrieved from establishment of the database to September 2020. Data analysis was performed using Stata14.0 and GeMTC 0.14.3 softwares. RESULTS: A total of 40 RCTs involving 3215 patients with KOA were retrieved. Network meta-analysis revealed that the fire needle was superior to western medicine, electro-acupuncture, conventional acupuncture, warm needle and sham acupuncture; warm needle was better than conventional acupuncture and western medicine whereas electro-acupuncture was better than conventional acupuncture in improving pain scores in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Moreover, we found that fire needle and warm needle more effectively improved WOMAC stiffness scores than western medicine and sham moxibustion, whereas electro-acupuncture was superior to western medicine and sham moxibustion in improving WOMAC stiffness scores. Further analysis revealed that fire needle, warm needle and electro-acupuncture were more effective in improving WOMAC joint function scores than conventional acupuncture and western medicine. The fire needle was superior to conventional acupuncture and sham acupuncture, whereas electro-acupuncture was better than western medicine, conventional acupuncture and sham acupuncture in improving visual analogue scale scores. CONCLUSION: This study shows that fire needle is superior to warm needle and electro-acupuncture, whereas warm needle and electro-acupuncture are better than conventional acupuncture, western medicine, sham moxibustion and sham acupuncture.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0860.053
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.348
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it