MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362623072 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.997116

Efficacy and safety of Tuina (Chinese Therapeutic Massage) for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, controlled, and crossover design clinical trial

2023· article· en· W4362623072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaoqiang Liu, Yunfan Zhan, Yujie Zhang, Ye Zhao, Yongli Chai, Hua Lv, Wei-An Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Municipal Health Commission
KeywordsMassageRandomized controlled trialMedicineOsteoarthritisCrossover studyPhysical therapyTraditional Chinese medicineClinical trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a highly prevalent joint disease among the middle-aged and elderly population that can lead to pain, functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and a large number of medical expenses. Physical therapy is one of the main treatment methods for KOA. In China, Tuina has been widely used in the treatment of KOA, but up to now, there is no high-quality medical evidence to support its effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this study was to objectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of Tuina in the treatment of KOA. Methods A crossover design clinical trial was performed on 96 patients. The test group and the control group in the trial were allocated randomly in a ratio of 1:1. The test group received Tuina treatment for 4 weeks first and then received health education intervention for another 4 weeks. The control group received health education intervention for 4 weeks first and then received Tuina treatment for another 4 weeks. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) total score was chosen as the primary outcome. The WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC daily activity score, and visual analog scale (VAS) score were the secondary outcomes. Adverse events during the intervention were collected in both groups. Results Compared with the baseline, the WOMAC total score, WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC daily activity, and VAS score of patients in both groups were improved significantly at weeks 4 and 8 ( p < 0.001). All patients who received Tuina treatment were significantly superior to those who received health education intervention in the WOMAC total score (194.96, 95% CI = 164.94–224.97, P < 0.001), WOMAC pain score (45.96, 95% CI = 35.82–56.09, P < 0.001), WOMAC stiffness (31.42, 95% CI = 26.37–36.46, P < 0.001), WOMAC daily activity (117.58, 95% CI = 97.56–137.61, P < 0.001), and VAS score (1.07, 95% CI = 0.83–1.32, P < 0.001). Both groups had no serious adverse events during the treatment. Conclusion This trial demonstrated that Tuina can reduce joint pain in patients with KOA and improve the physical functions of the knee joint effectively and safely. Clinical trial registration This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR-TTRCC-13003157). http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=6402 .

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.306 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207