MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155315736 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.04.086

A Retrospective Comparative Study With Historical Control to Determine the Effectiveness of Platelet‐Rich Plasma as Part of Nonoperative Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture

2014· article· en· W2155315736 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Kaniki, Kevin Willits, Nicholas G. Mohtadi, Vincent Fung, Dianne Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchilles tendon ruptureProspective cohort studyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryPlatelet-rich plasmaOrthopedic surgeryAchilles tendonAnkleConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyRange of motionTendonInternal medicinePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. METHODS: This was a comparative study that included a prospective cohort and a historical control group. The control group was formed from a randomized trial in which one arm of the trial underwent nonoperative treatment, including accelerated functional rehabilitation after acute Achilles tendon rupture identical to that performed in the prospective treatment group. Patients in the prospective group were recruited consecutively and were administered 2 injections of PRP during the first 2 weeks after the injury. The primary outcome was isokinetic plantar flexion strength at 1 and 2 years after injury. Secondary outcomes included range of motion (ROM), calf circumference, and Leppilahti score. The ankle-hindfoot scale (American Orthopedic Functional Ankle Scale [AOFAS]) was administered to patients who received the PRP injection in the prospective group but was not measured for the historical group. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients participated in the prospective PRP study group and were compared with a retrospective control group of 72 patients from a previous randomized controlled trial (RCT). The mean difference between groups in isokinetic plantar flexion strength (injured/uninjured) at 1 year after injury was -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -15.9 to 7.3; P = .5) and 2.4% (95% CI, -8.6 to 13.5; P = .7) at 30°/s and 60°/s, respectively. Results at 2 years after injury were -3.1% (95% CI, -13.5 to 7.2; P = .6) and 4.8% (95% CI, -3.5 to 13.1; P = .3) at 30°/s and 60°/s, respectively. All secondary outcomes were also not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that there is no measurable clinical benefit to the addition of PRP to the treatment regimen for nonoperatively treated acute Achilles tendon rupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207