A randomized blinded comparative study of clinical response to surface anatomy guided injection versus sonography guided injection of hyaloronic acid in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Comparison between the effect of sonographic guided and blind knee injection of hyaluronic acid has been evaluated in this study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-one patients with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomly allocated into two groups and received intrabursal injection of hyaloronic acid over 3 weeks. The difference between baseline amounts of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and visual analogue scale (VAS) score and these amounts after 6 and 12 weeks were calculated and subsequently compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Among all scores and indices, WOMAC pain and function subscales changed significantly (both in the short-term and long-term follow-up). The mean differences of WOMAC subscale pain in those who had received intra-articular injection under the guidance of sonography were significantly higher than those in patients who had received blind injections after 6 and 12 weeks. The mean differences of WOMAC subscale function in those who had received ultrasonography guided intra-articular injection were significantly higher than those in patients, who had received blind injections after 6 and 12 weeks. The mean in differences of the 10-cm VAS (both at rest and after 50-feet walk) in the two groups was statistically significant after 6 weeks, but did not remain significant after 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Application of sonography might improve the response of patients to intra-articular injection of hyaloronic acid, at least in certain clinical indices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".