MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198679718 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000975

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Duloxetine for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain

2021· review· en· W3198679718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bo Chen, Jingrui Duan, Sheng-Yue Wen, Jian Pang, Min Zhang, Hongsheng Zhan, Yuxin Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyConfidence intervalMeta-analysisBrief Pain InventoryRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectClinical trialDuloxetine HydrochlorideChecklistInternal medicineChronic painAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We conducted the updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the best available quantitative and qualitative evidence to evaluate the effects and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search used 3 English and 4 Chinese biomedical databases from inception through July 10, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials of duloxetine with intervention duration of 2 weeks or longer for knee OA. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by Brief Pain Inventory and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcome measurements included 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity, and adverse events (AEs). The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria. The review was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD 42020194072). RESULTS: Six studies totaling 2059 patients met the eligibility criteria. Duloxetine had significant reductions in Brief Pain Inventory 24 hours average pain (mean difference [MD]=-0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.92 to -0.57; P<0.00001; I2=13%; 5 trials; 1695 patients); patient general activity (MD=-0.76; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.56; P<0.00001; I2=0%; 5 trials; 1694 patients) WOMAC physical function subscale (MD=-4.22; 95% CI, -5.14 to -3.30; P<0.00001; I2=26%; 5 trials; 1986 patients); Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (MD=-0.48; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.37; P<0.00001; I2=29%; 5 trials; 1741 patients); and Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (MD=-0.34; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.24; P<0.00001; I2=0%; 4 trials; 1178 patients) compared with placebo control. However, no difference on WOMAC pain subscale (standard mean difference=-1.68; 95% CI, -3.45 to 0.08; P=0.06; I2=100%; 3 trials; 1104 patients) and in serious AEs (risk ratio=0.92; 95% CI, 0.40-2.11; P=0.84; I2=0%; 5 trials; 1762 patients) between duloxetine and placebo. Furthermore, duloxetine failed to show superior effects for improving the life quality and demonstrated more treatment-emergent AEs. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for knee OA patients but further rigorously designed and well-controlled randomized trials are warranted.

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 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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.011
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207