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 OpenAlex
Sanjeev Kumar Kare, Ajay Gupta, Girish H. Rudrappa

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

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