Efficacy and Treatment Response of Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections in Patients With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections are often used for short-term pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study investigates the efficacy of intra-articular corticosteroid injections in patients with symptomatic knee OA and factors that affect treatment response. METHODS: This prospective, multicentered cohort study had 100 participants with radiographic evidence of knee OA enrolled. Participants received one corticosteroid injection into the affected knee and were evaluated before the injection (baseline) and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the injection. RESULTS: Participants' Visual Numeric Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores improved at all time points except for the Visual Numeric Scale score at 6 months, compared with baseline scores (P < 0.001). Participants with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1 or 2 OA saw clinical improvement in the WOMAC scores at all time points, compared with the baseline score (P < 0.01). Compared with all other subgroups, obese patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 or 4 OA had significantly worse WOMAC scores at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively). DISCUSSION: Our findings validate previously established guidelines for nonsurgical management of knee OA and suggest that intra-articular corticosteroid injections may be an acceptable short-term management option in patients unwilling or unable to undergo surgical treatment. Obesity and OA severity affect the efficacy of intra-articular corticosteroid injections. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving intra-articular corticosteroid injections had improved pain and function. Clinicians should expect less improvement in patients with obesity and/or advanced arthritis. Clinical benefits of intra-articular injections in these patients are less predictable.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".