Does intraarticular PRP injection improve function, pain and quality of life in patients with OA of knee? Case control study of 50 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common debilitating chronic disease. Up to one in 5 people over the age of 45 suffer from knee OA and typical symptoms include significant pain, restricted mobility and difficulty to indulge in activities of daily living. Other than knee replacement, no other reliable treatment exists to manage symptomatic knee OA. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is a form of Prolotherapy and is increasingly used to manage OA patients, although the evidence is largely anecdotal. We conducted a case-control study to assess efficacy of PRP comparing it for pain relief in OA Knee. We studied two groups of 25 patients each. One group of 25 patients was given therapeutic exercises and Acetaminophen for pain relief (control group). Second group of 25 patients (PRP group) was injected with two courses of intra-articular injection of Leucocyte rich PRP with interval of 6 weeks. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) was recorded pre-intervention, at six months & one year post-intervention in both the groups. Change scores were assessed for statistical significance. No compilations were noted in both groups and none of the cases needed further surgical intervention during the follow up period. Mean changes of total WOMAC, in PRP group showed significantly better improvement than control group (P < 0.05) at all time intervals. This study showed that intra articular PRP knee injection combined with therapeutic exercise can be more effective in pain reduction and improvement of stiffness and quality of life, compared with therapeutic exercise alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".