Efficacy and safety of combined Chinese and Western medicine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, multicenter cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To conduct a real-world evaluation of the efficacy and safety of combined Chinese and Western medicine in treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: A multicenter, prospective cohort study design was employed, enrolling 450 KOA patients (Kellgren-Lawrence score of 3 or less). The patients were divided into a Western medicine treatment group (WM group) and a combined Western and traditional Chinese medicine treatment group (WM-CM group). A 6-week treatment plan was administered, and follow-up visits occurred at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after initiating treatment. The primary outcome indicator was the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score after 6 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcome indicators included WOMAC subscales for pain, stiffness, and joint function, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, physical component summary (PCS), mental component summary (MCS), and clinical effectiveness. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was used as a safety evaluation indicator. Results: A total of 419 patients were included in the final analysis: 98 in the WM group and 321 in the WM-CM group. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable, except for the incidence of stiffness symptoms and stiffness scores. After 6 weeks of treatment, the WM-CM group exhibited superior results to the WM group in improving the total WOMAC score (24.71 ± 1.38 vs. 16.36 ± 0.62, p < 0.001). The WM-CM group also outperformed the WM group in WOMAC pain and joint function scores, VAS score, PCS score, MCS score, and clinical effectiveness (p < 0.05), which was consistent with the findings of the main evaluation index. Subgroup analysis indicated that the combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment showed more pronounced benefits in patients under 65 years of age and in those with a Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) classification of 0-I. Throughout the study, no adverse effects were observed in either group. Conclusion: The combination of Chinese and Western medicine demonstrated superiority over Western medicine alone in relieving knee pain symptoms, improving knee function, and enhancing the quality of life for KOA patients with a K-L score of 3 or less. Moreover, the treatment exhibited a good safety profile. Clinical Trial Registration: ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), identifier (ChiCTR1900027175).
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".