ArticleBiomedical reports2025
Efficacy and safety of loxoprofen sodium cataplasms in the treatment of osteoarthritis: A randomized, multicenter study.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perioperative loxoprofen sodium is associated with lower pain and anxiety levels in dental implant surgery: a cohort study in China.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of loxoprofen sodium cataplasm (LSC) with those of flurbiprofen cataplasm (FPC) in osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, subjects meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the first group received LSC once daily, with the application of one patch per area for 2 weeks, whereas the second group received FPC twice daily, with the application of one patch per area for 2 weeks. The treatment response was evaluated based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) global score, Lysholm score and adverse events for 296 patients enrolled across three subcenters, with 192 patients in the LSC group and 104 patients in the FPC group. The treatment effectiveness rates, based on the VAS, WOMAC global and Lysholm scores, were 74.46, 61.41 and 85.25%, respectively, for the LSC group and 43.14, 31.37 and 66.67%, respectively, for the FPC group. Regardless of the effectiveness criterion used, the LSC group exhibited a superior treatment effectiveness rate compared with the FPC group. After 2 weeks of treatment, OA symptoms improved in both groups, with the LSC group exhibiting lower VAS (P<0.05) and WOMAC global scores (comprising pain, stiffness and physical function scores) compared with the FPC group (P<0.05), while the Lysholm score was higher in the LSC group compared with the FPC group (P<0.05). The FPC group experienced more general adverse events (P>0.05) and dressing shedding (P<0.05) compared with the LSC group, whereas the LSC group had more specific adverse events (such as skin itching, fever and allergy) compared with the FPC group (P>0.05). The results suggested that compared with FPC, LSC exhibited higher short-term efficacy and a consistent safety profile. The present study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (chictr.org.cn; ChiCTR2300072504; date of registration, June 15, 2023).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.