<p>Periarticular hypertonic dextrose vs intraarticular hyaluronic acid injections: a comparison of two minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is the most prevailing form of joint disease. Despite the importance of minimally invasive therapeutic methods of KOA, there is a lack of evidence to compare intraarticular hyaluronic acid injection vs traditional dextrose prolotherapy. Objective: The aim was to compare the therapeutic effects of prolotherapy with hypertonic dextrose vs hyaluronic acid on function and pain in KOA cases. Materials and methods: One hundred and four KOA patients were enrolled and randomly assigned into two groups, each containing 52 patients. The hyaluronic acid (HA) group were treated by 2.5 mL of hyaluronic acid intraarticulary, and the hypertonic dextrose (HD) group received 10 mL of 12.5% dextrose periarticulary. Injections were repeated three times with 1-week intervals. Pain intensity, measured by visual analog scale, and knee function, scaled by the Western Ontario and McMaster university arthritis index scores were compared between the two groups before and 3 months after intervention. Pain and function of the knee improved significantly ( P <0.001) in all patients. However, significantly more symptom relief was found in the HA over the HD group. Prolotherapy with hypertonic dextrose and intraarticular injection of hyaluronic acid results in the same pain reduction and symptom relief as a noninvasive therapeutic method of KOA. Conclusion: These results recommended intraarticular hyaluronic acid rather than prolotherapy by hypertonic dextrose for KOA symptoms relief. Keywords: prolotherapy, periarticular, intraarticular, dextrose, hyaluronic, knee 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 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".