Single- and double-dose of platelet-rich plasma<i>versus</i>hyaluronic acid for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid have been shown to be useful in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. However, investigations comparing the efficacy of these two drugs together are insufficient. AIM: hyaluronic acid injections in three groups of patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial study involved 95 patients. Thirty-one subjects received a single injection of PRP (group PRP-1), 33 subjects received two injections of PRP at an interval of 3 wk (group PRP-2) and 31 subjects received three injections of hyaluronic acid at 1-wk intervals (group hyaluronic acid). The patients were investigated prospectively at the enrollment and at 4-, 8- and 12-wk follow-up with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale questionnaires. RESULTS: < 0.001). The mean total WOMAC scores for groups PRP-1, PRP-2 and hyaluronic acid at baseline were 63.71, 61.57 and 63.11, respectively. The WOMAC scores were significantly improved at final follow-up to 42.5, 35.32 and 57.26, respectively. The highest efficacy of PRP was observed in both groups at wk 4 with about 50% decrease in the symptoms compared with about 25% decrease for hyaluronic acid. Group PRP-2 had higher efficacy than group PRP-1. No major adverse effects were found during the study. CONCLUSION: PRP is a safe and efficient therapeutic option for treatment of knee osteoarthritis. It was demonstrated to be significantly better than hyaluronic acid. We also found that the efficacy of PRP increases after multiple injections.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".