Intraarticular injection of platelet-rich plasma in knee osteoarthritis: single versus triple application approach. Pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the triple intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with respect to the single injection in patients with mild osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: A total of 35 patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of osteoarthritis grade I and II were analyzed. They were randomized into two groups: single application (18 patients) and triple application (17 patients). Both groups were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index, and the Health Survey 12v2 (SF-12) at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly decreased the level of pain (VAS) (single, from 7.3±2.1 to 4.6±2.7 and triple, from 6.6±2.4 to 0.9±1.4; p lt 0.05) and the total WOMAC (single, from 44.2±19.7 to 26.7±24.9 and triple, from 41.4±15.5 to 7.2±7.3; p lt 0.05) at the end of the study. The triple application showed better improvement in the VAS (p= 0.0007) and the total WOMAC (p= 0.0209) scores when comparing the final results between groups. CONCLUSION: The triple infiltration of PRP in patients with mild knee osteoarthritis is clinically more effective than the single application at 48 weeks of follow-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".