Early Outcome of Platelet Rich Plasma and Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Agent Alone and in Combination on Primary Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Platelet rich plasma is an emerging treatment modality in managing mild and moderate cases of osteoarthritis. There is no consensus on dose and various combination of this product with other available treatment modalities especially Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID). Aim: To determine and compare the early treatment outcomes of intra-articular injection of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) and oral NSAIDs alone and in combination in mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. Materials and Methods: Forty-five subjects with mild and moderate osteoarthritis who met the study criteria were randomly allocated into three intervention groups: Group A: had intraarticular injections of autologous PRP only; Group B: received oral NSAIDs only, while Group C: had both oral NSAID and intra-articular injection of autologous PRP. Subjects in Group A had 3 sessions of injections at monthly interval while Group B had 75 mg of Diclofenac taken daily at 8 am and 8 pm. Subjects in the Group C had both monthly injections of autologous PRP and oral administration of NSAIDs for three months. Outcome measures were severity of pain assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and functional outcome using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Data were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22, Armonk, NY; IBM Corp and Comparison of the means were done using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Better responses in the severity of pain and functional outcome were seen in subjects who had intra-articular administration of autologous platelet rich plasma with or without NSAIDs than in subjects who had only NSAIDs (p<0.05). Conclusion: PRP alone and in combination with NSAID is superior to NSAID only therapy in mild and moderate osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".