An investigation into the efficacy of intra-articular ozone (O2–O3) injection in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Seyed Ahmad Raeissadat,1 Elnaz Tabibian,2 Seyed Mansoor Rayegani,3 Shahram Rahimi-Dehgolan,3 Arash Babaei-Ghazani4 1Clinical Development Research Center of Shahid Modarres Hospital, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department and Research Center, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 2Radiology Department, Medical Imaging Center, Advanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 3Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department and Research Center, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neuromusculoskeletal Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Purpose: This study aimed to review and pool the current literature on intra-articular ozone injection in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients.Methods: A systematic review of three big databases was performed to identify all English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of intra-articular ozone injection vs a control injection for knee OA sufferers, using the following two measuring tools: pain VAS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC).Results: A total of 428 patients in five RCTs were included, from which 53% (n=225) were in the ozone group and 47% in the control (hyaluronic acid [HA], dextrose, and air injection) group (n=203). The mean age of the patients in both groups was 64 years. Females were the majority. All studies had at least 2 months of follow-up (F/U). Mean difference (MD) between the groups for VAS in the first month was –0.23 with a P-value of 0.71 (negative value was in favor of ozone), whereas this difference in the third and sixth months reached 1.04 and 1.31, respectively, favoring the control group. These data demonstrated that control injection had a more prolonged pain relief period. A similar trend was seen regarding WOMAC scores; pooled results showed that ozone was slightly better than the control injections during the first month (MD =–7.84 [P=0.15]), but it declined to MD=2.55 and 8.23 at 2- to 3- and 4- to 6-month F/U, respectively, again in favor of control injections. Also, adverse events occurred homogeneously in both ozone (6/150 cases, 4%) and control groups (7/129 cases, 5.4%; P-value=0.31).Conclusion: Based on the current meta-analysis, intra-articular ozone injection efficacy was significantly superior to placebo and slightly lower to other control injections with non-significant difference. Therefore, ozone could be recommended as an efficient non-surgical treatment, durable for at least 3–6 months, in mild or moderate knee OA management. Keywords: ozone, hyaluronic acid, knee osteoarthritis, systematic review, meta-analysis
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».