MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Biomechanical Impact Of Hyaluronic Acid In Knee Osteoarthrtis Patients: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study.

2009· article· en· W2059659379 on OpenAlexaff
J. Decaria, Robert J. Petrella, Manuel Montero‐Odasso, Dalton L. Wolfe, Bert M. Chesworth

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPlaceboWOMACViscosupplementationGaitRandomized controlled trialPopulationHyaluronic acidKnee JointSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine how Hyaluronic acid (HA) impacts clinical outcomes and gait function in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. METHODS: Nineteen mild-moderate knee OA patients were randomized to receive 3 consecutive weekly knee injections of 2ml Suplasyn (20mg HA) or 1.2 ml placebo (P) (0.01mg HA). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the WOMAC OA Index and gait characteristics were determined with GAITRite software. RESULTS: Means and standard deviations are presented thus, Mx (SD). The patient population was 72.21 (6.61) years old, 167.47(9.26) cm tall and weighed 81.54 (12.68) kg. Eight patients received HA and 11 patients received P. Treatment effects were determined by comparing week 1(W1) to week 4(W4) outcomes, using 1-tail Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for within group, and 1-tail Mann-Whitney tests, for between groups comparison. At W1 the HA groups normal walking velocity (NWV) = 112.17 (19.42) cm/s and fast walking velocity (FWV) = 152.58 (28.48) cm/s. By W4 their NWV = 120.24 (22.14) cm/s (p=.025) and FWV = 157.58 (30.39) cm/s (p=.164). At W1 the P groups NWV = 108.81 (24.55) cm/s and FWV = 141.54 (31.86) cm/s. By W4 their NWV = 117.76 (22.77) cm/s (p=.03) and a FWV = 143.40 (32.05) cm/s (p=.297). No significant difference existed at either W1 or W4 between the two groups regarding both NWV and FWV (p>.05). At W1 WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function scores for the HA group were 11.25 (4.17), 5.75 (1.39), and 42.63 (13.64), respectively, and by W4 were 8.50 (2.98) (p=.008), 4.50 (1.07) (p=.021), and 32.50 (13.18) (p=.014), respectively. For the P group, W1 WOMAC scores for pain, stiffness and function were 11.55 (2.21), 5.73 (1.42), and 45.36 (6.19), respectively, and by W4 were 11.00 (3.13) (p=.297), 5.27 (1.49) (p=.130), and 39.73 (9.32) (p=.038), respectively. The HA group showed greater improvement in WOMAC scores, but they were not significantly different from P scores at W4 for pain (p =.152), stiffness (p =.272), and function (p =.129). CONCLUSIONS: At one week post-treatment modest improvement in clinical symptoms and gait function may be experienced in knee OA patients treated with 3 consecutive HA injections. These improvements may indicate the progressive nature of the onset of HA treatment in knee OA patients, and provide preliminary evidence for greater improvements expected at 3 and 6 months follow up.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→