Efficacy and safety of thread embedding acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thread embedding acupuncture (TEA) is a widely used clinical procedure for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain. However, few clinical studies have been conducted on the efficacy and safety of TEA for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and data from randomized controlled trials are lacking. This randomized controlled pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting large-scale studies on the efficacy and safety of TEA for KOA. METHODS: Forty participants were included in the study and randomly divided into 2 groups (TEA and acupuncture) of 20 each. The intervention period was 6 weeks. The experimental group received TEA once a week (total of 6 sessions) on 14 defined knee areas, and the control group received acupuncture twice a week (total of 12 sessions) on 9 defined acupuncture points. The primary outcome measure was the visual analogue scale score, and the secondary outcome measures were the short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores. Participants were assessed prior to the intervention (baseline) and at 3, 6, and 10 weeks (4 weeks after the end of intervention). The adverse effects of TEA and acupuncture were documented. Hematological examination and biochemical tests were performed at the screening and at 6 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 40 participants, 37 completed the study and 3 participants dropped out. Both the TEA and acupuncture groups showed a significant improvement in the visual analogue scale, short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores in a time-dependent manner. However, there was no significant interaction between group and time. No serious adverse events were reported in the groups, and no clinically significant changes were observed in the hematological and biochemical parameters. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that TEA is a safe and effective procedure for relieving pain in patients with KOA. The results of this study provide basic data and indicate the feasibility of large-scale clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TEA for 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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".