Efficacy and Safety of Intraarticular Sodium Hyaluronate in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted in 226 patients with knee osteoarthritis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intraarticular injections of sodium hyaluronate. Patients were randomized to three weekly injections of 30 mg sodium hyaluronate or physiologic saline (control) and were observed for an additional 25 weeks. In comparison with the control group, among patients who completed at least 15 weeks of the study and whose Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score for the contralateral knee was less than 12 at baseline, sodium hyaluronate injection resulted in improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score, patient and investigator global assessments, and pain on standing from Weeks 7 to 27. Fifty-eight percent of patients treated with sodium hyaluronate achieved a 5-unit or greater improvement in mean pain score from Weeks 7 through 27, compared with 40% of control patients. In addition, nearly twice as many patients treated with sodium hyaluronate as with saline (30% versus 17%, respectively) achieved a net improvement of at least 7 units. In contrast to treatment with saline, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score for the contralateral knee was inversely related to the magnitude of improvement after treatment with sodium hyaluronate. Few side effects were attributed to treatment, and no differences between treatment groups were seen in this respect (sodium hyaluronate, nine [8%]; saline, 11 [10%]). The incidence of injection site reactions was low (sodium hyaluronate, 1.2 %; saline, 1.5%). The results indicate that sodium hyaluronate treatment is well tolerated and produces statistically and clinically significant improvement of symptoms in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis in whom pain in the contralateral knee is relatively modest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".