Use of Transdermal Buprenorphine Patch of Strength 5mg and 10mg in Grade I and II Osteoarthritis Knee Patients for Pain Relief- A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomised Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine transdermal patches of strength 5mg and 10mg in grade I and II osteoarthritis knee patients with respect to improvement in pain score and physical function while taking into account of its adverse effects and effects on hemodynamic parameters. Methods: Hundred patients of age of 40-65 years, of either sex, American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) physical status I and II were randomly allocated into two equal groups and received 5mg and 10mg patches on day 1, day 7 and day 14. Primary endpoints were Numeric Rating Scale for pain score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) for improvement in quality of lifestyle. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, requirement of rescue analgesia and adverse effects. Results: The mean NRS and WOMAC scores were reduced more in group B than in group A on day 7 and day 14 across different time points [NRS: F value-413.72, WOMAC: F value-395.02] and types of treatment received combined [NRS: F value-306.72, WOMAC: F value-350.48] with p values<0.05 in both the cases. Subjects in group A needed to take more rescue analgesia. Other variables were comparable in the two groups. Discussion: Thus transdermal buprenorphine patch can be used as an alternative route providing constant level of analgesia with minimum adverse effects, the patch of 10mg strength showing higher analgesic efficacy and improved life-style in grade I and II osteoarthritis knee patients with comparable hemodynamic parameters and adverse effects to that of 5mg strength.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".