MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244245182 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.150297

Efficacy of Triamcinolone Hexacetonide versus Methylprednisolone Acetate Intraarticular Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-blinded, 24-week Study

2015· article· en· W2244245182 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrea Barranjard Vannucci Lomonte, Marina Gonçalves Veras de Morais, Lina Oliveira de Carvalho, Cristiano A. F. Zerbini

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisTriamcinolone acetonideCorticosteroidMethylprednisolone acetatePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialRheumatologyMethylprednisoloneVisual analogue scalePopulationInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Intraarticular (IA) corticosteroid injections are broadly used in knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, the best corticosteroid agent is not well defined. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of triamcinolone hexacetonide (TH) and methylprednisolone acetate (MA) injections in knee OA. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic knee OA and Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III were randomized to receive 40 mg of IA TH or MA. Evaluations were performed at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in the patient's assessment of pain by visual analog scale from baseline to Week 4. Secondary outcomes included a global assessment of the disease by patients and physicians, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequesne index (LI), and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria of response. Generalized estimating equations were used in statistical analysis. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 100 patients; 50 in each study arm. A significant improvement in pain was observed at Week 4 for both groups (p < 0.0001), with no difference between them (p = 0.352). This improvement was sustained up to Week 24. A significant improvement from the baseline was observed for both the patient's and the physician's global assessments, WOMAC questionnaire, and LI, with no differences between the groups. Improvements in the secondary outcomes were sustained during the study. The OMERACT-OARSI criteria of response was achieved by 74% and 72% of patients in the TH and the MA groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both IA therapies are equally effective, and improvement in pain and function can be sustained for up to 24 weeks. Controlled-trials.com identifier: ISRCTN15077843.

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)0.005
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 score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207