MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401953770 · doi:10.7759/cureus.68012

A Randomized Study of Myostaal® Liniment as an Add-On Therapy for Muscle Strengthening in Cases of Knee Osteoarthritis

2024· article· en· W4401953770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shailesh Deshpande, Vaishali Deshpande, Noopur Bhatt, Bhavin Dhanavade, Hemant Toshikane, Bhagawan G Kulkarni, Mukesh Chawda, Megha Nalawade, Rajmohan Seetharaman

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyMann–Whitney U testRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleStatistical significanceKnee flexionIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent degenerative musculoskeletal condition, affecting approximately 277 million people worldwide, with significant impacts on mobility, especially in women and obese patients, and an increasing incidence among Indians aged 30 to 50 years. The primary objective was to evaluate the knee muscle-strengthening effect of Myostaal® liniment (Solumiks Herbaceuticals Limited, Mumbai, India) as an add-on to physiotherapy for 90 days compared to physiotherapy alone in participants with knee OA. Secondary objectives included assessing changes in the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, WOMAC Subscale scores, Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance, Single Leg Stance Test (SLST) duration, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, and the number of adverse events from baseline to Day 90 between the two groups. METHODS: Seventy participants were randomly allocated to Group A (Myostaal® liniment plus physiotherapy) or Group B (physiotherapy alone) for 90 days, with Myostaal® liniment applied twice daily in Group A. Data were recorded in Case Report Forms (CRFs) and analyzed using parametric tests for within-group comparisons (one-way ANOVA or Friedman test) and non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney test) for between-group comparisons, with significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: The knee muscle strength (index knee) in Group A (test medication group) was significantly greater compared to Group B (standard treatment group) at Visit 3 (p<0.05; Day 60±3) and Visit 4 (p<0.001; Day 90±3). For the non-index (other) knee, a statistically significant increase in knee muscle strength was observed (p<0.001 at Day 90±3) solely in Group A. A notable reduction in total WOMAC score was seen in Group A from Visit 2 (p<0.01; Day 30±3) onward, compared to Visit 1 (Day 0). The scores at Visit 3 (p<0.001; Day 60±3) and Visit 4 (p<0.001; Day 90±3) were significantly lower than those at Visit 2 (Day 30±3). CONCLUSION: The local application of Myostaal® liniment through massage as an adjunct to a physiotherapy regimen, improved knee muscle strength in participants with knee OA, leading to an enhancement in joint functionality. Additionally, Myostaal® liniment provided superior pain relief as an add-on therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→