Oral Versus Topical Ibuprofen for Chronic KneePain: A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical ibuprofen provides an alternative treatment to oral ibuprofen for the treatment of chronic knee pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of topical versus oral ibuprofen in chronic knee pain treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, unblinded pilot study. SETTING: A private pain management practice. METHODS: Twenty patients received either ibuprofen tablets 3 times daily (2400 mg total) or 4% topical gel 4 times daily (320 mg total) for 2 weeks. Subjects completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form (SF-12v2) Health Survey, and a satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Comparison of WOMAC and SF-12v2 mean changes from baseline showed no differences between groups. Patient satisfaction and study treatment convenience were rated equivalently between groups. Within the topical group, significant improvements (P < 0.05) were experienced in the mean differences of WOMAC Pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks (-82.6, -158.3 to -6.8), WOMAC Stiffness scores from baseline to one week (-25.3, -50.0 to -0.6) and baseline to 2 weeks (-47.8, -95.7 to 0.1), WOMAC Physical Function scores from baseline to one week (-175.9, -348.6 to -3.2) and baseline to 2 weeks (-312.1, -580.5 to -43.7), and patient satisfaction scores from baseline to one week and baseline to 2 weeks. Within the oral group, significant improvements (P < 0.05) were experienced in mean differences of WOMAC Physical Function from baseline to one week (-342.6, -638.1 to -47.1) and baseline to 2 weeks (-323.2, -637.1 to -9.2). LIMITATIONS: As this was a preliminary investigation, the sample size of 20 subjects is a limitation in this study. CONCLUSION: Treatment of chronic knee pain with topical ibuprofen provided comparable clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction as oral ibuprofen in this pilot study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".