MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411284463 · doi:10.1089/rej.2025.0039

Efficacy and Safety of External Therapies of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4411284463 on OpenAlex
Zhen Wang, Chi Zhao, Mengmeng Li, Lili Zhang, Jieyao Diao, Yiming Wu, Tao Yang, Mingwei Shi, Lei Yang, Yu Wang, Miaoxiu Li, Yanqin Bian, Yunfeng Zhou, Xu Hui

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

VenueRejuvenation Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineAlternative medicineMeta-analysisTraditional Chinese medicineSystematic reviewPhysical therapyTraditional medicineMEDLINEInternal medicinePathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of external therapies for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is supported by several guidelines and systematic reviews. However, the relative advantages and disadvantages of TCM external therapies and their mechanisms of action have not yet been confirmed in evidence-based medicine. We used network meta-analysis to rank the effectiveness and safety of TCM external therapies, screen the optimal TCM external therapies. TCM external therapies for KOA published before October 2024 were comprehensively retrieved from eight electronic databases. Using the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook, two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data analysis was conducted using Stata 16.0 and RevMan 5.4 software. A total of 68 RCTs were identified, including 6571 participants, involving 11 interventions, 4.41% of which showed a high risk of bias. The results of the network meta-analysis revealed that in terms of improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scores, each external therapy was better than conventional medicine. Electroacupuncture may be the most effective intervention in improving the VAS score and TNF-α level. Moxibustion resulted in the greatest improvement in WOMAC function and IL-6 levels. The most effective interventions for reducing WOMAC pain scores were the manual needle knife, followed by electroacupuncture and Tuina therapy (SUCRA = 82.9%, 79.0%, and 71.4%, respectively). Warming acupuncture dominantly increased Lysholm scores. The safety results showed that the three safest interventions were the sham intervention, Tuina therapy, and moxibustion (SUCRA = 90.6%, 83.1%, and 68.8%, respectively). Silver needle had the best comprehensive effect. Electroacupuncture has the best effect on improving pain symptoms, and moxibustion can be prioritized when functional limitations are the main symptoms. To some extent, the changes in inflammatory factors correlated with an improvement in KOA symptoms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.297 · 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