Comparison between intra-articular Botulinum toxin type A, corticosteroid, and saline in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intra-articular injection (IAI) with Botulinum toxin type A (BTA), triamcinolone hexacetonide (TH), and saline in primary knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial, with blinded patients and assessor. SETTING: Outpatient rheumatology service. SUBJECTS: Patients with knee osteoarthritis grades II and III. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received IAI with 100 IU BTA, 40 mg TH, or isotonic saline solution (SS) 0.9%. MAIN MEASURES: Patients were assessed at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks with the following instruments: visual analog scale for pain during movement (VASm; primary outcome) and visual analog scale for pain at rest (VASr), Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire, 6-minute walk test, Timed Up and Go test, Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire, range of motion of knee, and ultrasound (US) measurement of synovial hypertrophy. RESULTS: In total, 105 patients were randomized, with 35 in each group; 96 were female (91.4%) and 9 were male (8.6%), with a mean age of 64.2 years (±6.9). At 12 weeks, the TH group showed better results only for VASm. At four weeks, the TH group showed better results than the BTA and SS groups for VASm (-68.9% (37.8) vs. -35.3% (40.3) vs. -35.9% (51.4)), WOMAC pain (-56.0% (30.7) vs. -30.8% (34.3) vs. -30.0% (39.9)), WOMAC stiffness (-53.4% (38.4) vs. -17.2% (59.3) vs. -17.3% (78.1)), WOMAC function (-48.2% (34.6) vs. 30.8% (33.6) vs. -13.6% (64.9)), WOMAC total score (-51.2% (31.0) vs. -30.9% (30.0) vs. -18.8% (54.8)), and US measurement of synovial hypertrophy (-11.6% (44.9) vs. -1.5% (47.9) vs. +28.6% (81.3)). CONCLUSION: IAI with TH had a higher effectiveness than that with TBA or SS in the short-term assessment (four weeks) for pain in movement, WOMAC, and US measurement of synovial hypertrophy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".