Efficacy and Safety of Hylan versus Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to use meta-analytic approach to compare the efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan and hyaluronic acid (HA) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases through July 2017 to identify Level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated clinical efficacy and safety of hylan compared with HA for knee OA. The primary outcomes were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, and WOMAC function scores. In each study and for the outcome measures (VAS for pain, WOMAC pain, function and stiffness scores, and Lequesne score), we calculated the treatment effect from the difference between the preintervention and postintervention changes in the hylan and HA groups. Twenty-one RCTs involving 3,058 patients were included. Pooled analysis suggested that compared with HA, hylan was associated with similar pain relief and function improvement in patients with knee OA (VAS for pain: mean difference [MD], –3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –9.13 to 3.04; p = 0.33; I 2 = 76%. WOMAC pain score: MD, 0.23; 95% CI, –0.25 to 0.70; p = 0.35; I 2 = 0%. WOMAC function score: MD, –0.47; 95% CI, –6.81 to 5.88; p = 0.88; I 2 = 84%). No significant difference was found comparing the patients with treatment-related adverse events. The relationship was robust in sensitivity analysis and consistent in most of the subgroup analyses. As to the primary outcomes (WOMAC pain, function scores, VAS for pain), the difference between hylan and HA did not reach the previously reported minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values (–13.4 for VAS for pain, –2.0 for WOMAC pain score, –7.7 for WOMAC function score). Our meta-analysis showed that there were no statistically and clinically significant differences in pain relief and function improvement between hylan and HA injections for knee OA treatment. In view of its higher costs, we discourage the use of hylan in patients with knee OA in clinical practice. The level of evidence is I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.
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 | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".