Comparison of the Effectiveness of Intraarticular Ozone Therapy and Platelet Rich Plasma Treatment in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been applied for a long time in osteoarthritis (OA). Although there are studies about PRP that examining the effectiveness with agents such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroid, there are few published literature comparing with ozone therapy (OT). The aim of this study is to compare the pain severity and functional status of OA patients undergoing intraarticular ozone and PRP injections. Methods: In a study which is made as prospective, randomized controlled study (RCS), 49 patients were included the study. In the first group (n = 24) OT, in the second group (n = 25) PRP injections were administered intraarticularly 3 times in total with one week intervals. Visual pain scale (VAS) and severity of pain were compared with Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results: In the PRP group, WOMAC pain, physical function and WOMAC total score were significantly lower than the OT group (p ˂ 0.05). Although VAS score decreased significantly (p ˂ 0.05) after treatment in both groups compared to pretreatment, the VAS score in the PRP group was significantly (p ˂ 0.05) lower than the OT group after treatment. Conclusion: Our study contributes to the literature in terms of limited publication about OT. However, this study shows that the results of PRP treatment are superior to OT in the treatment of knee OA.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".