Observation of the therapeutic effect of auricular bean pressing on early knee osteoarthritis pain: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), there is a need for the long-term use of therapeutic drugs that reduce joint pain and have fewer adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of bean pressing on ear points on early KOA pain. METHODS: One hundred patients with KOA recruited at the Wenzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between February 2019 and May 2022 were divided randomly into a treatment group (n= 50) and control group (n= 50). Patients in the treatment group received regular rehabilitation combined with auricular bean-pressing treatment, while patients in the control group only received conventional rehabilitation treatment. The measurement indicators - knee swelling, tenderness, range of motion sign score, C-reactive protein, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) indexes - were recorded before and after treatment. RESULTS: On day 5 following the start of treatment, the visual analog scale (VAS) and WOMAC scores of the treatment group were significantly lower than those of the control group (P< 0.05), and the VAS and WOMAC scores in the treatment group after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment (P< 0.05). At week 4 after the start of treatment, the dosage of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). No adverse events were observed during the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Auricular bean-pressing therapy had an analgesic effect and could also alleviate mild to moderate KOA swelling, joint stiffness, and other symptoms, effectively reducing the demand for NSAIDs and improving both knee function and quality of life. The results suggested that auricular bean-pressing therapy has promising prospects in the treatment of early KOA pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".