six.47) -11.77 (19.03) -22.19 (15.91) -21.91 (15.81) -13.26 (15.17) -14.93 (26.09) -0.87 (19.72) -24.90 (23.14) -21.73 (22.49) -14.43 (21.23)63 64 65 66 67 68.three 71.9 77.two 78.3 82.1 68 78 77.7 73.7 75.9.four eight.three 7.2 7.3 7.9 4.four three.9 5.88 6.25 6.NoNoKneeKivitz et al. 2001 [64]Celecoxib 200 mg Naproxen 1000 mg PlacebobYesNoHipLehmann et al. 2005 [65]Celecoxib 200 mg PlaceboYesyesKneeLeung et al. 2002 [66]Etoricoxib 60 mg Naproxen 1000 mg PlaceboYesNoHip/kneeMarkenson et al. 2005 [67]b, eOxycodone 1020 mg PlaceboNoYesHip/knee/spine/otherPuopolo et al. 2007 [68]Etoricoxib 30 mg Ibuprofen 2400 mg Placebo6.6 6.7 six.YesYesHip/kneePage 5 ofMyers et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Problems 2014, 15:76 http://www.biomedcentral/1471-2474/15/Table 1 Traits of all incorporated studies (Alphabetically ordered) (Continued)Rauck et al. 2013 [69] Schnitzer et al. 2011 [70]b Schnitzer et al. 2011 [71]b Schnitzer et al. 2010 [72]b Sheldon et al. 2005 [73]b Sowers et al. 2005 [74]c Tannenbaum et al. 2004 [75]b Hydromorphone 16 mg 330 Placebo Celecoxib 200 mg Placebo Naproxen 1000 mg Placebo Naproxen 1000 mg Placebo Celecoxib 200 mg Placebo Celecoxib 200 mg Naproxen 1000 mg Celecoxib 200 mg Placebo Vojtassak et al. 2011 [76] Hydromorphone Placebo Wiesenhutter et al. 2005 [77] Etoricoxib 30 mg Ibuprofen 2400 mg Placeboa59.5 60 61.7 61.four 60 60.15 61.1 61 60.2 60.eight 61.eight 63.six 64.1 64.six 65 66 63.1 61.three 59.five 70.08 (12.98) 69.85 (13.12) 54.79 (15.45) 55.31 (14.36) 46.20 (22.16) 51.40 (20.36) 50.73 (16.04) 51.25 (14.58) 60.00 (10.11) 57.92 (10.36) 68.68 (16.64) 68.13 (17.02) 69.71 (16.52)b-17.00 (19.98) -13.00 (20.01) 54.90 (14.49) 54.58 (15.11) -16.58 (15.24)a -10.62 (13.83) -16.04 (18.62) -20.42 (20.17) -9.90 (17.01) -16.30 (20.99) -14.70 (21.50) -13.96 (16.46) -9.79 (16.77) -17.75 (14.62) -17.69 (15.79) -24.52 (22.97) -23.65 (23.13) -14.20 (20.24)a64.two 63 61.3 60.6 70.five 72.65 67.four 71.9 63.1 61.three 62 60 69.two 67.1 77 68 70.1 70 72.cNoYesHip/knee331 419 416 254 257 227 221 393 382 136 128 481 243 138 149 214 2103.7 three.NoNoHip-26.29 (18.71)aaYesNoKnee-33.33 (20.23)aaYesNoKnee-16.25 (19.08)6.7NoNoKneeNoNoHip/knee5.3 4.NoNoKneeNoYesHip/knee7.9 8.two 6.YesNoHip/KneeNote: worth imputed by estimating a stiffness subscore from other scores reported for that treatment; study longer than 12 weeks duration; integrated in Bayesian analysis only, no placebo arm, dwashout will not be considered as complete in research with concomitant analgesic use; edenotes studies with out a washout period; fdenotes research with enriched enrollment design and style; gindicates endpoint WOMAC score, change from baseline not accessible in these studies; hindicates difference from placebo in WOMAC score modify from baseline.Vandetanib Web page six ofMyers et al.Anti-Mouse IL-1a Antibody BMC Musculoskeletal Problems 2014, 15:76 http://www.PMID:24257686 biomedcentral/1471-2474/15/Page 7 ofvariance. Scores are normally reported as: a) a total with the Likert scores, b) a total of the VAS scores, or c) normalized units with total and subscale scores reported on 000 scales [34]. To overcome this issue, WOMAC total scores have been converted to a 0-100 normalized scale working with a direct ratio. If change from baseline was not reported, it was calculated as the distinction in between baseline and endpoint or, if not feasible, as the difference between baseline and a weighted typical of numerous observations during therapy [35]. When subscale scores were reported without the need of the total score, the total score and variance have been calculated from the subscales. Missing stiffness subscale scores were imputed by su.
Potassium channel potassiun-channel.com
Just another WordPress site
