Efficacy and safety of loxoprofen sodium cataplasms in the treatment of osteoarthritis: A randomized, multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of loxoprofen sodium cataplasm (LSC) with those of flurbiprofen cataplasm (FPC) in osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, subjects meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the first group received LSC once daily, with the application of one patch per area for 2 weeks, whereas the second group received FPC twice daily, with the application of one patch per area for 2 weeks. The treatment response was evaluated based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) global score, Lysholm score and adverse events for 296 patients enrolled across three subcenters, with 192 patients in the LSC group and 104 patients in the FPC group. The treatment effectiveness rates, based on the VAS, WOMAC global and Lysholm scores, were 74.46, 61.41 and 85.25%, respectively, for the LSC group and 43.14, 31.37 and 66.67%, respectively, for the FPC group. Regardless of the effectiveness criterion used, the LSC group exhibited a superior treatment effectiveness rate compared with the FPC group. After 2 weeks of treatment, OA symptoms improved in both groups, with the LSC group exhibiting lower VAS (P<0.05) and WOMAC global scores (comprising pain, stiffness and physical function scores) compared with the FPC group (P<0.05), while the Lysholm score was higher in the LSC group compared with the FPC group (P<0.05). The FPC group experienced more general adverse events (P>0.05) and dressing shedding (P<0.05) compared with the LSC group, whereas the LSC group had more specific adverse events (such as skin itching, fever and allergy) compared with the FPC group (P>0.05). The results suggested that compared with FPC, LSC exhibited higher short-term efficacy and a consistent safety profile. The present study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (chictr.org.cn; ChiCTR2300072504; date of registration, June 15, 2023).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".