Efficacy of Lavender Oil as an Adjunctive Treatment for Patients with Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) experience decline in social and physical abilities. Lavender is a promising option. To determine the clinical efficacy of lavender oil in comparison with Piroxicam gel (PG) for the treatment of knee OA. A double-blind trial with 90 patients utilized random blocks to divide them into three groups including the lavender oil group, the PG group, and the control group for treatment comparison. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to measure aspects of osteoarthritis, particularly physical function, pain, and stiffness. Control group had no change in VAS pain scores. Lavender oil and PG reduced scores after one month, but remained unchanged after two months. The VAS scores of the lavender oil group exhibited a significant reduction from 5.37 ± 0.68 to 3.00 ± 0.64, while PG decreased VAS score from 5.45 ± 0.98 to 3.62 ± 1.26 (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups. Altogether, Lavender oil has a similar effect as PG on pain severity and physical function in patients with knee OA. Lavender oil is recommended as an effective natural therapeutic agent and safe complementary treatment for knee OA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".