Efficacy of hyaluronic acid after knee arthroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyaluronic acid might be beneficial for patients after knee arthroscopy.However, the results remain controversial.A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of hyaluronic acid following knee arthroscopy.Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of hyaluronic acid in knee arthroscopy were included.Compared with control intervention after knee arthroscopy, hyaluronic acid treatment was found to significantly improve Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores and decrease pain on motion, but had no substantial influence on pain scores at 2, 6 and 12 weeks after knee arthroscopy.Objective: To investigate the effect of hyaluronic acid on functional recovery and pain control in patients following knee arthroscopy.Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of hyaluronic acid following knee arthroscopy.Subjects and methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of hyaluronic acid in knee arthroscopy were included.A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.Results: Six RCTs involving 310 patients were included in the meta-analysis.Overall, compared with control intervention following knee arthroscopy, hyaluronic acid treatment was found to significantly increase Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (mean difference 11.43; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.39-21.47;p = 0.03), but had no impact on pain scores at 2 weeks (mean difference -0.16; 95% CI -0.81-0.49;p = 0.63), pain scores at 6 weeks (mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.86-0.89;p = 0.98), pain scores at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.51; 95% CI -1.56-0.53;p = 0.34).In addition, pain on motion was significantly reduced after knee arthroscopy (risk ratio (RR) 0.22; 95% CI 0.06-0.79;p = 0.02).Conclusion: Compared with control intervention after knee arthroscopy, hyaluronic acid treatment was found to significantly improve WOMAC score and decrease pain on motion, but had no substantial influence on pain scores at 2, 6 and 12 weeks after knee arthroscopy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".