Topical Formulation of Tramadol 5% in the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Prospective, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of topical tramadol in the management of knee osteoarthritis pain. Sixty patients with moderate to severe pain of knee osteoarthritis were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive tramadol 5% or placebo along with oral diclofenac 100 mg/day. They were instructed to apply the ointment every 12 h on the knee for three weeks. To control breakthrough pain, the patients were allowed to take acetaminophen up to 650 mg per day. The measured variables were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Sixty patients completed the study. At the end of follow-up period, VAS decreased by 21% (from 7.2 ± 2.1 to 5.7 ± 2.4, p-value < 0.05) and WOMAC score decreased by 23% (from 49.6 ± 17.4 to 38.4 ± 18.1, p-value < 0.05) in intervention group. Topical tramadol was significantly effective in reducing the intensity of pain and osteoarthritis symptoms in comparison to placebo considering VAS (5.7 ± 2.4 vs. 8.0 ± 2.9, p-value = 0.001) and WOMAC score (38.4 ± 18.1 vs. 46.0 ± 18.6, p-value = 0.007). Topical tramadol 5% appears to be effective in moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis pain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".