Comparative effectiveness of intra-articular prolotherapy versus peri-articular prolotherapy on pain reduction and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a common degenerative disease. Prolotherapy is an alternative therapy used in multiple musculoskeletal disorders. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intra-articular dextrose injection versus peri-articular prolotherapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: Fifty-two adults with painful primary knee osteoarthritis for at least three months were randomized to intra- and peri-articular injection groups. Prolotherapy was done twice with two week intervals. The outcome measures included the Oxford Knee Scale (OKS), Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which were obtained from patients before the first injection at the base line and after the second injection at the fourth and eighth weeks. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between demographic characteristics; before the injection, pain intensity, OKS, and WOMAC scores were approximately equal between the two groups. After dextrose prolotherapy, VAS, OKS, and WOMAC scores improved from baseline through the fourth and eighth weeks in both groups without any superiority between the two methods of injections (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Dextrose prolotherapy either intra- or peri-articular injection resulted in significant improvement, so it could be an inexpensive and effective management of knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered as a clinical trial under registration ID of IRCT2016091229795N1 at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir). FUNDING: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".