The efficacy and safety of auricular point pressing therapy for knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the leading causes of disability. The effectiveness of auricular point pressing therapy for treating KOA remains controversial. This protocol describes the method of a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and safety of auricular point pressing therapy for treating KOA. METHODS: Four English databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) and 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wanfang) will be searched. All randomized controlled trials related to auricular point pressing therapy for KOA will be included. Extracted data will include publication details, basic information, demographic data, intervention details and patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and visual analogue scale. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed by 2 independent reviewers. If the meta-analysis is precluded, we will conduct a descriptive synthesis using a best-evidence synthesis approach. The strength of recommendations and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development. RESULTS: The systematic review will provide evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of auricular point pressing therapy on KOA. CONCLUSION: The systematic review will provide evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of auricular point pressing therapy for KOA patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For this review, ethical approval is not required. Patients will not be involved. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY 202220077.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".