Intra-articular injection of platelet - rich plasma and therapeutic exercise in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no definite treatment strategy capable of decreasing destruction of cartilage and enhancing its healing. Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) provides a lot of growth factors that are capable of stimulating regeneration of cartilage and is supposed to be a future solution to patients with osteoarthritis (OA). To detect the efficacy of intra-articular injection of PRP or therapeutic exercise (Ex) alone as well as a combination of both in the treatment of idiopathic knee OA. A prospective randomized controlled clinical study was conducted. A total of 60 patients, 44 to 65 years of age, having idiopathic unilateral knee OA were included in the study and were divided into three groups: PRP group included 20 patients and were treated with intra-articular PRP injection, Ex group included 20 patients and were treated with only therapeutic Ex, and PRP and Ex group included 20 patients who were treated with both PRP intra-articular injection and therapeutic Ex. Evaluation of all patients was done by visual analogue scale, tenderness, range of motion, thigh circumference, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at baseline and 1 and 6 months later. Objective evaluation was done through MRI of osteoarthritic knee at baseline and 6 months later. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for windows, version 20.0. Baseline WOMAC score differences among the three groups were not statistically significant but were significant 6 months after treatment. In PRP and Ex groups, there was a significant improvement after treatment, whereas a highly significant improvement in PRP+Ex group. MRI grading differences among the three groups were not significant before or after treatment, with no improvement in all three groups after treatment. A combination of intra-articular injection of PRP and therapeutic Ex resulted in significantly lesser visual analogue scale, WOMAC score, and joint tenderness compared with PRP or Ex 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".