Comparison between intra-articular ozone and placebo in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the trial was to determine the effectiveness of oxygen-ozone injections on knee osteoarthritis concerning pain reduction, joint functional improvement, and quality of life. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial, 98 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized into two groups receiving intra-articular 20 μg/ml of ozone (OZ) or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. The efficacy outcomes for knee OA were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Lequesne Index, Timed Up and Go Test (TUG Test), SF-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM). RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, ozone was more effective than the placebo: VAS [mean difference (MD) = 2.16, p < 0.003 (CI 95% 0.42-3.89)], GPM [MD = 18.94, p < 0.004 (CI 95% 3.43-34.44)], LEQ [MD = 4.05, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 1.10-7.00)], WOMAC (P) [median of diff = 9.999, p = 0.019 (CI 95% 0.000-15.000)], WOMAC (JS) [median of diff = 12.499, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 0.000-12.500)], WOMAC (PF) = [median of diff = 11.760, p = 0.003 (CI 95% 4.409-19.119)], TUG (no statistical difference) and SF-36 (FC) [(MD = -25.82, p < 0.001 (CI 95% 33.65-17.99)], SF-36 (PH) [MD = -40.82, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -54.48-27.17)], SF-36 (GSH) [MD = -3.38, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -4.83-1.93)], SF-36 (SA) [MD = 2.17, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -19.67-8.24), SF-36 (EA) [MD = -35.37, p < 0.001 (CI 95% -48.86-21.89)]. Adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 in the placebo group and 1 in the ozone group) and included only puncture accidents. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the efficacy of ozone concerning pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTNR55861167.
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) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".