MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1767338574

Outcomes of intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

2007· article· en· W1767338574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thana Turajane, Aree Tanavaree, Viroj Labpiboonpong, Samart Maungsiri

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACSodium hyaluronateSurgeryRheumatismRheumatologyRetrospective cohort studyViscosupplementationCohortPhysical therapyInternal medicineIntra articular
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid has become an intervention step between conservative and operative treatment of knee osteoarthritis. This is recommended by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). However, the expected outcomes and the selection criteria are undetermined and controversial. A few articles have mentioned the long-term result of Sodium Hyaluronate in failed conservative treatment. OBJECTIVE: Determine the clinical outcomes of treatment with three intra-articular Sodium Hyaluronate injections (500-730 kilodalton (KDA), Hyalgan) in knee-osteoarthritis patients who failed conservative treat-ment. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This was an uncontrolled, retrospective-cohort study with at least a 24-month followup period. The outcomes of the treatment were evaluated by questionnaires and telephone calls. The primary efficacy parameter was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and the secondary efficacy parameter was delay or cancellation of any surgical treatments during the followup period. Patients who had undergone surgical treatments were placed in the non-response group. The response group has repeated treatment every year. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three patients (208 knees) treated with intra-articular Sodium Hyaluronate were classified into three groups according to radiographic assessment. In group 1, narrowing joint space (Ahlback grade 1-2), WOMAC score improved from 70.46 to 26.55 (p < 0.0001), 41 in 46 patients (44/49 knees) did not require any surgical treatments. In group 2, bony attrition (Ahlback grade 3-4), WOMAC score improved from 70.19 to 40.38 (p < 0.0001), 47 in 70 patients (51/78 knees) did not require surgical treatment. In group 3, lateral subluxation (Ahlback grade 5) WOMAC score improved from 64.71 to 32.67 (p < 0.0001), 58 in 67 patients (69/81knees) did not require surgical treatment. The result from WOMAC subscale analysis revealed an improvement in pain, stiffness, and function in all groups (p < 0.0001), but did not improve in ambulatory status. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular Sodium Hyaluronate injection, used in knee-osteoarthritis patients who failed conservative treatment, was effective in visible cartilage patients (Ahlback grade 1, 2) without mechanical problems involved. In severe osteoarthritis patients (Ahlback grade 3, 4, 5), this treatment was of less benefit if those patients were young, active, and expected independent ambulation. Surgical treatment may be a procedure of choice to meet patient expectation in improving function and ambulatory status. On the other hand, if patients were old and inactive with household ambulation, using intra-articular Sodium Hyaluronate was beneficial in improving pain, stiffness, and function but not ambulation level with 86.56% of excellent or good in overall satisfaction level. Thus, the radiographic evaluation, age, ambulatory status, and patient expectation may be the key factors to determine successful outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→