Osteoarthritis of the knee refractory to standard care: comparison of intraarticular hylan G-F 20 with triamcinolone acetonide. A real life study in a developing country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intraarticular Hylan G-F 20 and triamcinolone acetonide 80 mg (TA) in primary knee osteoarthritis (OA) refractory to standard care in a developing country. Methods: After injection of either Hylan or TA, patients were seen at 12 and 26 wk. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, pain, stiffness (100 mm visual analogue score), and European Quality of Life (EQ) score were measured as well as radiographic joint space change and joint severity grade. Results: The 26-week study was completed by 24 patients receiving Hylan (45 knees) and 21 receiving TA (38 knees). The primary outcome (improvement ≥40% of total WOMAC scores) at 12 wk in the Hylan group was 30 (66.7%) and in the TA group 5 (13.2%) (P<0.00) and at 26 wk, 35 (77.8%) and 10 (26.3%), respectively, (P<0.001). All secondary end points (pain, stiffness quality of life) improved significantly after 12 and 26 wk in both groups) but more in the Hylan group. The Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic grade improved more in the Hylan group than the TA group. The joint space improved at 12 wk in the Hylan and TA groups (0.4±0.8 and 0.1±0.5, respectively, P=0.044), and at 26 wk (0.6±1.1 and 0.0±0.5, respectively, P=0.003). No remarkable side effects were observed. Conclusions: In primary knee OA refractory to standard care, pain improved significantly more with Hylan G-F 20 than with TA after 12 and 26 wk as regards function and quality of life. Further studies are needed to assess longer time effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".