Faculty Opinions recommendation of Efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of high-dose celecoxib in the treatment of moderate to extreme pain and inflammation associated with acute gouty arthritis.METHODS: A multinational, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial was done with patients (aged≥18 years) with acute gouty monoarthritis or oligoarthritis (onset of pain≤48 h before enrollment). Patients were treated for 8 days with 1 week followup and were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive celecoxib 50 mg bid, celecoxib 400 mg (followed by 200 mg later on Day 1 and then 200 mg bid for 7 days), celecoxib 800 mg (followed by 400 mg later on Day 1 and then 400 mg bid for 7 days), or indomethacin 50 mg tid.RESULTS: Of 443 patients screened, 402 were randomized and 400 received treatment. Baseline demographics were comparable among treatments. Patients receiving high-dose celecoxib (800/400 mg) experienced a significantly greater reduction in pain intensity on Day 2 compared with low-dose celecoxib 50 mg bid [least squares (LS) mean difference -0.46; p=0.0014]. For high-dose celecoxib 800/400 mg, the change in pain scores from baseline to Day 2 was comparable with indomethacin 50 mg tid (LS mean difference 0.11; p=0.4331). There were significant differences in adverse events when the combined celecoxib groups (29.5%) were compared with patients taking indomethacin (43.1%; p=0.0116). There was no change in median serum creatinine levels for any treatment. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events (8.8% vs 3%; p=0.0147) with indomethacin than with the combined celecoxib groups.CONCLUSION: High-dose celecoxib (800/400 mg) was significantly more effective than low-dose celecoxib (50 mg bid) and comparable to indomethacin in the treatment of moderate to extreme pain in patients with acute gouty arthritis. Further, celecoxib was well tolerated. PMID: 22859357
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.183 | 0.025 |
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".