Efficacy of Intra-articular Injection of a Newly Developed Plasma Rich in Growth Factor (PRGF) Versus Hyaluronic Acid on Pain and Function of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Knee osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of a newly developed plasma rich in growth factor (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) on pain and function of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: In this single-blinded randomized clinical trial, patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of knee were assigned to receive 2 intra-articular injections of our newly developed PRGF in 3 weeks or 3 weekly injections of HA. Our primary outcome was the mean change from baseline until 2 and 6 months post intervention in scores of visual analog scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lequesne index. We used analysis of variance for repeated-measures statistical test. Results: A total of 69 patients entered final analysis. The mean age of patients was 58.2 ± 7.41 years and 81.2% were women. In particular, total WOMAC index decreased from 42.9 ± 13.51 to 26.8 ± 13.45 and 24.4 ± 16.54 at 2 and 6 months in the newly developed PRGF group (within subjects P = .001), and from 38.8 ± 12.62 to 27.8 ± 11.01 and 27.4 ± 11.38 at 2 and 6 months in the HA group (within subjects P = .001), respectively (between subjects P = .631). There was no significant difference between PRGF and HA groups in patients’ satisfaction and minor complications of injection, whereas patients in HA group reported significantly lower injection-induced pain. Conclusions: In 6 months follow up, our newly developed PRGF and HA, both are effective options to decrease pain and improvement of function in patients with symptomatic mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".