MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403304336 · doi:10.1177/09731296241281438

Efficacy of Turmeric-Boswellia Formulation for Acute Low Back Pain: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4403304336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjeev Kumar Kare, Ajay Gupta, Girish H. Rudrappa

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacognosy Magazine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDouble blindPlaceboMedicineBoswellia serrataRandomized controlled trialTraditional medicineAcute painAnesthesiaAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To evaluate the efficiency of the turmeric-Boswellia formulation (TBF, Rhuleave-K) in reducing acute low back pain (LBP) among healthy subjects. Materials and Methods This research aimed to assess the effectiveness of TBF compared to a placebo through a single dose of 1,000 mg, administered in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 76 participants experiencing acute low back pain. Efficacy was evaluated using objective outcome measures, namely the numerical rating scale (NRS), categorical pain relief scale (PRS), the onset of analgesia, and the short-form McGill questionnaire. NRS and PRS measurements were taken 30 minutes post-dose at rest, during movement, and under pressure application at the afflicted area. The onset of analgesia was assessed 6 hours post-dose. Quantitative analysis of the Sum of Pain intensity Difference (SPID) and Total Pain Relief (TOTPAR) values was conducted based on the NRS and PRS scores, respectively. Results Pain relief began quickly and all participants in the TBF group reported a significantly noticeable reduction in pain at about 76.4 minutes, compared to the 190 minutes in the placebo group. Similarly, 92.7% of participants in the TBF group experienced mean meaningful pain relief (MPR) as early as 224.1 minutes, compared to the zero MPR responders in the placebo group. There was a statistically significant difference in the time to pain relief between the TBF and placebo groups, with significant improvement in the TBF group (log-rank hazard ratio, p < 0.001). None of the individuals in the placebo group demonstrated a minimum of 50% maximum TOTPAR in rest, movement, and pressure. Whereas, 75.71% of the TBF group experienced at least 50% maximum TOTPAR in rest, 88.09% in movement, and 90.48% in pressure. The effectiveness of the treatment, as measured by the number needed to treat (NNT) for achieving at least 50% of MPR in the TBF group, was 1.2 at rest and 1.1 during both movement and pressure. Conclusion Oral administration of TBF (Rhuleave-K) to individuals with acute low back pain significantly reduces pain, providing meaningful relief within 4 hours of administration. This highlights the substantial analgesic effectiveness of TBF in the context of acute LBP.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 venuePharmacognosy MagazineSame topicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207