MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6902532222 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4023010

Efficacy and safety of electrical moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2018· other· en· W6902532222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoxibustionRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleOsteoarthritisClinical trialRating scaleProtocol (science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health issue because it causes pain and functional limitation. Many studies have reported that moxibustion, a treatment in traditional Korean medicine, is effective in treating KOA. However, conventional moxibustion produces smoke, harmful gases, and odors that can adversely affect the eyes, skin, and throat. It is also difficult to control the intensity of stimulation in conventional moxibustion. An electrical moxibustion device was developed to circumvent these problems, but there are few studies of that device. We will evaluate the efficacy and safety of electrical moxibustion as a treatment for KOA, and compare it with traditional indirect moxibustion and usual care. Methods This is a multicenter, randomized, open, assessor-blinded, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 138 eligible participants with KOA will be randomly allocated into three groups (electrical moxibustion, traditional indirect moxibustion, or usual care) with a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants in each moxibustion group will receive 12 sessions of moxibustion treatment at 6 acupoints (ST36, ST35, ST34, SP9, EX-LE4, SP10) plus up to 2 points of â ashiâ , if needed, over a period of 6 weeks (2 sessions per week). A specifically designed device that provides thermal stimulation using electrical energy will be used for the electrical moxibustion group. Participants in the usual care group will receive usual treatment and self-care. The primary outcome measure is change in pain on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from week 1 to week 6. The secondary outcome measures are pain assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS), the Korean version of the Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (K-WOMAC), patient global assessment (PGA), and the European quality of life five dimension five level scale (EQ-5D-5 L). Safety will be assessed by monitoring adverse events at each visit. Follow-up measurements will be performed at 12 weeks after baseline measurements. Discussion This trial will provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of electrical moxibustion as a treatment for KOA. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03287570 . Registered on 19 September 2017.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.009

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→French-language works237,207→