Observational studyAging clinical and experimental research2026
Different dosing regimens for chronic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) pain management: A pooled analysis on celecoxib.
Observational study in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phenotypic Factors and Celecoxib Efficacy in Knee OA: A Post‑hoc Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized, Double‑Blind, Placebo‑Controlled Trials.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Selective EP4 Receptor Antagonism for Osteoarthritis Pain: Emerging Evidence and Future Directions for KF-0210.Pain and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCelecoxib is widely used for the management of different chronic musculoskeletal conditions including osteoarthritis (OA), but the comparative effectiveness of 200 mg once daily (OD) versus 100 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with varying baseline pain severity is not fully established.
aimsTo compare the efficacy of celecoxib 200 mg OD and 100 mg BID in reducing pain among OA patients with moderate or severe baseline pain, using pooled post hoc analyses of two similar randomized controlled trials. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in knee OA (n = 1,360) were pooled. Patients were stratified into moderate (VAS 40-69 mm, n = 675) or severe (VAS ≥ 70 mm, n = 685) pain subgroups. Interventions included celecoxib 100 mg BID, celecoxib 200 mg OD, or placebo. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in VAS pain at weeks 2 and 6, analyzed via mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) and ANCOVA with last observation carried forward. WOMAC pain score was a secondary endpoint.
resultsBoth celecoxib regimens significantly reduced VAS pain scores versus placebo at weeks 2 and 6 in the overall and moderate pain groups (p < 0.05). In severe pain patients, both regimens were superior to placebo at week 2; however, at week 6, only the 200 mg OD regimen retained statistical significance (LS mean difference vs. placebo - 7.45, p = 0.0135), while 100 mg BID did not. WOMAC pain score results mirrored VAS findings, with 200 mg OD showing the greatest improvement in severe baseline pain.
conclusionCelecoxib 100 mg BID and 200 mg OD are both effective for OA pain relief, in moderate and severe pain. Findings suggest 200 mg OD may confer an advantage in patients with severe baseline pain in the long-term treatment (week 6).
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.