<p>NASHA hyaluronic acid for the treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis: a prospective, single-arm clinical trial</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis of the shoulder or glenohumeral joint is a painful condition that can be debilitating. Intra-articular injection with hyaluronic acid should be considered for patients not responding adequately to physical therapy or anti-inflammatory medication. Methods: This was a single-arm, open-label, prospective study of a single intra-articular injection of NASHA (non-animal hyaluronic acid) in patients with symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Patients were followed up for 26 weeks post-treatment, during which time rescue medication with acetaminophen was permissible. The study objective was to demonstrate that a single injection of NASHA is well tolerated with an over-6-month 25% reduction in shoulder pain on movement, assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Results: Forty-one patients were enrolled, all of whom received study treatment. The mean decrease in shoulder pain on movement score over the 6-month study period was −20.1 mm (95% CI: −25.2, −15.0 mm), corresponding to a mean reduction of 29.5% (22.0, 37.0%). Statistically significant improvements were also observed in shoulder pain at night and patient global assessment. There was no clear change over time in the percentage of patients using rescue medication and mean weekly doses were below 3500 mg. Seventeen patients (41.5%) experienced adverse events, all of which were mild or moderate. Two adverse events (both shoulder pain) were deemed related to study treatment. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that a single injection of NASHA may be efficacious over 6 months and well tolerated in patients with symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Larger studies are needed for confirmation. Keywords: Durolane ® , glenohumeral joint, non-animal hyaluronic acid, osteoarthritis, shoulder, viscosupplementation
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".