Fire Needling Therapy of Different Frequencies versus External Diclofenac Diethylamine Emulgel for Knee Osteoarthritis: Study Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is regarded as one of the leading musculoskeletal diseases. Although the efficacy is under exploration, fire needling therapy is considered an effective alternative for KOA. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of different frequencies of fire needling therapy in attenuating pain and promoting function in KOA patients. Methods: This is a study protocol for a pilot, three-arm, single-center, randomized controlled trial. A total of 90 participants with KOA will be recruited and randomly assigned to the high-frequency fire needling group (3 sessions per week, for 6 weeks), the low-frequency fire needling group (1 session per week, for 6 weeks) or the positive control group (Diclofenac Diethylamine Emulgel, 3 times per day, for 6 weeks) in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants will accomplish the trial at Week 14 after a follow-up evaluation. The response rate will be set as the primary outcome that the proportion of participants obtaining a minimal clinically important difference, which is identified as ≥2 units on the numerical rating scale (NRS) and ≥6 units on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score at Week 6 compared with Week 0. Secondary outcomes are NRS, WOMAC, Brief Pain Inventory, Short-Form Health Survey-12, Timed Up and Go Test, and pain threshold. Discussion: This is the first standardized protocol comparing fire needling therapy and positive control drugs. This trial may provide reliable evidence for the effectiveness of fire needling therapy and dose-effect property of it in KOA. Trial registration: The trial has been registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registered number: ChiCTR2100043041), registered on 4 February 2021.
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 | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.008 |
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".