Efficacy and safety of acupuncture with moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is prevalent, yet its management remains challenging. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture combined with moxibustion versus other standard treatments in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to retrieve relevant RCTs. Data on baseline characteristics, treatment efficacy, and adverse events were extracted. The analysis utilized pooled weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the superior treatment modality. RESULTS: A total of 18 RCTs were included. Acupuncture combined with moxibustion demonstrated significant improvement in the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the long-term (> 60 weeks) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores for pain, stiffness, and physical function compared to other treatments. In contrast, short- (< 4 weeks) and mid-term (6-60 weeks) WOMAC outcomes for pain, stiffness, and physical function indicated varied results. The overall efficacy rate also favored the combined therapy significantly in the short- and mid-term evaluations. Notably, this therapy was associated with fewer adverse events. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis reveals that acupuncture combined with moxibustion is notably more effective and safer than other treatment modalities for KOA, particularly during mid- and long-term follow-up periods.
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 | 0.043 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.241 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".