Single versus multiple dose hyaluronic acid: Comparison of the results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three injections of standard linear HA versus single injection of lightly cross-linking HA in patients with knee OA. METHODS: Forty subjects were randomized into two groups. The first group received single dose intraarticular injection of 4 ml lightly cross-linking sodium hyaluronate (Monovisc), and the second group received three consecutive intraarticular injections of 2.5 ml standard linear sodium hyaluronate (Adant) with one week intervals. Visual analog scale (VAS)-pain and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were measured. RESULTS: In both groups, VAS-pain and WOMAC scores (except WOMAC-stiffness) were improved statistically lasting up to the 6th month with respect to before injection values (p< 0.001). There were no statistical differences in VAS-pain and WOMAC scores after injections (p> 0.05) in both groups. But in the 6th month visit, VAS-resting values were found to be statistically improved in standard linear HA group compared to lightly cross-linking HA group (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although three-dose administration was significantly superior to single-dose at the sixth month, current knowledge is not sufficient to decide whether single-dose or multiple-dose HA injection should be chosen. There is a clear need for verification of our results with long-term studies on larger patient groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".