MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412645121 · doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01263-7

Neuromuscular exercise in addition to celecoxib versus celecoxib alone for symptomatic and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4412645121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. Xiaotian, Haixin Song, Xuqing Li, Tao Wu, Jianhua Li, Chengqi He

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCelecoxibOsteoarthritisMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular exercise (NEXA) and celecoxib each are effective for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA), but the potential benefits of combination therapy remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of NEXA in addition to celecoxib compared to celecoxib alone on pain and physical function in patients with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA. METHODS: A prospective, assessor-blinded, two-arm, superiority randomised controlled trial. Sixty participants with Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade 2-3 symptomatic knee OA were included and randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo 12 weeks NEXA and celecoxib or to receive celecoxib 200 mg once daily alone. The primary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) and total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), six-minute walk test, and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test at 3 months and 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, the between-group differences in the VAS score (mean difference, -10.30; 95% CI, -19.38 to -1.23; P = 0.026) and total WOMAC score (mean difference, -10.40; 95% CI, -15.54 to -5.27; P < 0.001) were statistically in favour of the NEXA and celecoxib group. There was evidence that NEXA in addition to celecoxib were superior to celecoxib alone for KOOS symptoms score (P = 0.040), KOOS activities of daily living score (P < 0.001), KOOS sport and recreation score (P = 0.014), KOOS quality of life score (P = 0.036), six-min walk test (P = 0.006), and TUG test (P = 0.001) at 6 months. The NEXA and celecoxib group achieved significantly higher proportions of patients above the minimal clinically important difference in total WOMAC score (78.6% vs. 51.9% for absolute improvement; 75% vs. 37% for relative improvement) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with celecoxib alone, there was a beneficial effect of NEXA in addition to celecoxib on pain and physical function in patients with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA at 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR-IOR-14,005,414, 31/10/2014.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Sports Science Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207