The use of hyaluronic acid in the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a review of the evidence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive degenerative joint disease that causes ankle pain and functional limitation especially during walking. It tends to involve younger people with high functional request and has often a post-traumatic origin. Symptoms control through conservative treatment is essential to procrastinate as long as possible the need for surgery. Although few data are present in literature about the use of local viscosupplementation in ankle OA, their potential use for ankle OA has been suggested. We systematically reviewed literature to evaluate the best evidence about short and long term effectiveness of intra-articular HA injections in the treatment of ankle OA. After having screened titles and abstracts from PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar, we identified 14 full text articles and collected the outcome rates of intra-articular cycles of HA injections in patients with symptomatic ankle OA. Only 4 randomized control trials were included. Ankle Osteoarthritis Scales (AOS), American Orthopedic Foot, Ankle Society (AOFAS) clinical rating score, visual analog scales (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index of Pain, Stiffness, and Physical Function Score were most frequently used to evaluate outcomes. Although randomized trials showed scores improvement also in placebo-treated patients, current evidence suggests that viscosupplementation for treatment of ankle OA is a safe and effective method. More randomized controlled trials with a large number of patients that compare not only the different types, dosages and frequency of HA injections, but also the effectiveness of HA versus corticosteroids infiltrations and HA versus other types of conservative treatment are still needed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".