A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL TO COMPARE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF INTRA ARTICULAR SYNTHETIC VERSUS AVIAN HYALURONIC ACID INJECTIONS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the study: To see if there are any differences in pain relief and complications with intraarticular Knee injection of synthetic and avian Hyaluronic acid products. Summary: After following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 130 patients were randomly allocated two groups, receiving either synthetic or avian Hyaluronic acid injections. Patients were explained about the study and consent was sought. They were given Western Ontario and McMaster University [WOMAC] questionnaires to be filled before, 48 hours, 6 weeks and 3 months after the injections. They were examined at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months post injections. 124 of these patients promptly responded. 68 patients had natural product and 56 patients had synthetic product. In the natural injection group of 68 patients, 57 had pain relief at 3 months and 20 of these continued to have relief at 6 months. In the synthetic injection group of 56 patients, 48 had pain relief at 3 months and 28 of these continued to have relief at 6 months. No complications were noted in either of the groups. Difference of WOMAC scores were done at 6weeks and 3 months for each group. The p value of this difference of scores was 0.12 at 6 weeks and 0.92 at 3 months showing no significant difference. The 95% confidence intervals [avian vs synthetic] at 6weeks were −0.8 to 7.2 and at 3 months were −3.8 to 4.2. The p value of clinical examination at 6 months was 0.043 showing significance. Conclusion: Synthetic injections are significantly more effective, economical and equally safe as avian injections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".