A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PLACEBO STUDY OF DEXTROSE IONTOPHORESIS VERSUS DEXTROSE PROLOTHERAPY IN CASE OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis is the most common cause of musculoskeletal pain and disability in the knee joint. This study investigated the efficacy of Dextrose iontophoresis versus Dextrose prolotherapy in case of knee osteoarthritis in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study.Methods: sixty patients diagnosed mild to moderate osteoarthritis were included in the study. Their age's were45:65 years with mean age 51 ± 3.5 years. Patients were divided randomly into three equal groups, group (A)received 50 % dextrose iontophoresis, group (B) Each patient received three intra-articular injections of dextrose at 1-month intervals in weeks 0, 4, and 8 and group (C ) received sham iontophoresis. The outcome measurements were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities arthritis index (WOMAC) values, knee ROM, and pain severity at rest (seated) and in activity (after walking 6 m) using the visual analogue scale (VAS) were recorded. The patients were evaluated for these parameters before allocated in their groups then after 4, 8, and 24 weeks later.Results: compared to sham group (placebo) there were significant improvement of VAS and ROM of iontophoresis group than sham (placebo) group (p<0.000). Also there were significant improvement of prolotherapy group than placebo (p<0.006, and 0.02) respectively. Furthermore there was significant improve of iontophoresis group than prolotherapy where p was <0.000 for VAS, ROM and (WOMAC).Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that both dextrose iontophoresis and dextrose prolotherapy may be as useful modalities in treatment of osteoarthritis with better effects of dextrose iontophoresis than prolotherapy.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".