Prolotherapy for knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of chronic arthritis and represents a major cause of pain and disability. Prolotherapy is an injection of hypertonic dextrose used for painful chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, including knee OA. Patients and methods This study was done to evaluate the effect of prolotherapy in treatment of knee OA. It was carried out on 200 patients with mild to moderate knee OA. The patients were classified into two groups: group 1 (100 patients) was treated by prolotherapy at 1, 5, and 9 weeks with re-evaluation after 6 months, and group 2 (100 patients) was treated by NSAIDS and physiotherapy for 6 months and served as a control group. Results The 6-month post-treatment visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index showed significant difference in pain, stiffness, and functional disability ( P =0.001 and 0.043; 0.032 and 0.027; and 0.007 and 0.015, respectively) in both groups when compared with the baseline. However, on comparing both groups after treatment, we noticed significant difference in pain and disability favoring group 1 ( P =0.031 and 0.048, respectively), whereas stiffness did not show significant difference between them ( P =0.83). By knee ultrasound, degree of synovitis showed significant difference in groups 1 and 2 when compared with the baseline ( P =0.004 and 0.007, respectively), but other parameters showed no significant differences. However, when comparing both groups after treatment, we noticed significant difference in cartilage thickness favoring group 1 ( P =0.01), whereas other parameters did not show significant difference between them, although the degree, signs, and symptoms of knee effusion were improved in favor of prolotherapy group. Conclusion Prolotherapy is a promising line for treatment of knee OA. Prolotherapy reduces pain and improves the functional status in patients with knee OA.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".