Comparison of Intraarticular Injections of Hyaluronic Acid versus Dextrose Applied with Periarticular Prolotherapy in the Treatment of Recreational Athletes with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of intraarticular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) versus dextrose (DX) in combination with periarticular prolotherapy (PrT) in the treatment of recreational athletes with knee osteoarthritis.\nMaterial and Methods: A total of 54 patients who had chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA) were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as PrT+HA (intraarticular hyaluronic acid combined with periarticular prolotherapy, n=27) and PrT+DX (intraarticular dextrose combined with periarticular prolotherapy, n=27). Clinical efficacy and pain were evaluated via the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) at pre-treatment and one, three and six-month follow-ups.\nResults: Intra-group statistical analyses revealed significant improvements in PrT+HA and PrT+DX groups for WOMAC and VAS scores compared with baseline (p<0.001). When the two groups were compared, VAS and WOMAC scores in the first month follow-ups were significantly better in the PrT+DX group (p=0.022 and p=0.03, respectively) while sixth month follow-up scores were significantly better in the PrT+HA group (p<0.001 and p<0.005 respectively).\nConclusions: Both of the intraarticular injections (HA and DX) are efficacious and safe in treating knee osteoarthritis. HA offers advantage of higher treatment success, while DX offers clinical efficacy with less cost.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".