A comparative study to evaluate the safety & efficacy of Etoricoxib and Piroxicam in pharmacotherapy of Osteoarthritis in tertiary care hospital Kanpur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disorder characterized by chronic pain and functional limitation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Etoricoxib and Piroxicam in patients with symptomatic OA. Methods:A prospective, open-label, longitudinal study was conducted at Rama Medical College, Kanpur, involving 284 patients randomized equally into two groups: Group A (Etoricoxib) and Group B (Piroxicam). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, Day 7, and Day 15. Safety evaluation included CRP levels, liver and renal function tests, complete blood count, and monitoring of adverse effects. Results:Both groups showed significant improvement in VAS and WOMAC scores over 15 days. However, Group A demonstrated significantly greater reductions at Day 7 and Day 15 (p < 0.01), indicating superior symptom control. CRP levels and organ function tests remained comparable between the groups (p > 0.05), suggesting similar safety profiles. Adverse effects were significantly lower in Group A, particularly for gastric discomfort (p = 0.005) and vomiting (p = 0.044), with a lower overall incidence of side effects (mean 5.42 ± 2.71 vs. 7.58 ± 5.73). Conclusion:Etoricoxib provided more effective and better-tolerated short-term symptom relief in osteoarthritis patients compared to Piroxicam, with a comparable safety profile. These findings support its use as a preferable option for short-term management of OA 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".