A comparison of jade moxibustion and traditional moxibustion in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was developed to compare the relative clinical efficacy of traditional moxibustion and Jade moxibustion in an effort to define the most effective approaches to treating knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: In total, 94 patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the traditional moxibustion (TM) and Jade moxibustion (JM) groups. For JM, a jade kneepad was preheated for 3 minutes via electrification, with the jade in the kneepad being pressed onto acupoints when reaching an initial temperature of 46°C. For patients in the TM group, moxa cones were applied to acupoints for treatment. In total, 12 treatments were performed for patients in each group, with treatment being conducted 3 times per week. Study outcomes included 36-item short-form health survey and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index knee stiffness scores. In addition, serum levels of osteoarthritis-related cytokines were measured. RESULTS: Overall, 89/94 patients completed this study, including 44 and 45 in the TM and JM groups, respectively. The 36-item short-form health survey physical functioning at weeks 12 and 24 (P = .033, 0.001), role-physical at weeks 4 and 24 (P = .030, 0.014), and role-emotional at week 4 (P = .045) were the only scores to differ significantly between the TM and JM groups. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness scores in the JM groups improved significantly relative to baseline at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24 (all P < .01). The scores in the TM group differed significantly at all time points relative to baseline (all P < .01), with no differences between groups (all P > .05). Serum Interleukin-2 levels were lower in both groups (all P < .01). Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 only differed significantly for patients treated via JM (P < .05, P < .01), with the same also being true for Interleukin-1β and Interleukin-8 in the TM group (all P < .01). No significant differences in other cytokines were observed, nor did they differ significantly between groups (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that JM treatment can improve knee osteoarthritis patient quality of life, alleviating joint stiffness and restoring joint function with a level of efficacy comparable to TM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".