Prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of single 6-ml injection of hylan G-F 20 and hyaluronic acid for primary knee arthritis: a preliminary study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of single 6-ml intraarticular injection between hylan G-F 20 and hyaluronic acid (HA) for knee osteoarthritis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty-two patients with primary knee arthritis, who were randomly received single intraarticular injection of 6-ml hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc) or HA (Hyalgan), were prospectively evaluated for clinical outcomes at a minimum 26-week follow-up. The parameters, including visual analog scale (VAS) during walking, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires, were evaluated at pre-injection, then at 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 26 weeks, post-injection. RESULTS: There were 15 patients in both groups who were available for final follow-up with no statistical differences in demographic data, VAS during walking, WOMAC score and SF-36 score at pre-injection. There was no adverse event related to viscosupplementation using in is better than of both agents. At 26-week follow-up, patients in both groups had significantly improved VAS during walking (p < 0.01), WOMAC score (p < 0.01) and SF-36 (p < 0.05) with no statistical differences between groups. However the cost of hylan G-F 20 was much more expensive than that of HA (534 USD vs. 252 USD). CONCLUSION: A single intraarticular injection of both hylan G-F 20 and HA for primary knee arthritis had no adverse event related to 6-ml volume. At 26-week follow-up of the present preliminary study, both groups had similarly improved clinical outcomes post-injection. Further study in larger population is required. As the cost of hylan G-F 20 was 2 times higher than HA, a single 6-ml intraarticular injection of HA (Hyalgan) provided better cost-effectiveness than hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc).
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".