A comparative analysis of the efficacy of intra-articular injections of corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is the most common chronic degenerative joint disease characterized by pain, stiffness, swelling and progressive functional limitation in elderly. Non-surgical management modalities like physical therapy, lifestyle modification and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, are often ineffective or do not alleviate symptoms adequately. Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections have been used for long to alleviate the symptoms of knee OA. Recently platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has also been tried widely. Very few researches involving a comparison of the three have been conducted. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect, efficacy and safety of intra-articular corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis. Methods: 90 patients (132 knees) with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomized to receive one injection of intra-articular corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma and were followed for 3 months. The two groups were compared as regards pain and functional improvement using the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the visual analog pain scale (VAS), by assessing the patients three times. Results: VAS scale showed that all three modalities were effective in pain reduction. Both WOMAC and KOOS score represented variably improved symptoms i.e. decrease in pain and stiffness along with improvement in daily activity after 3 months in all 3 groups. Conclusion: As the degree of pain relief achieved by the respective modalities was almost similar, the most important difference between the three intervention groups was the duration of their effectiveness. HA is suggested to be superior in the duration of pain relief when compared to CS and PRP. We can propose that HA can be administered less often as compared to CS and PRP for knee joint OA. Therefore, it will be more convenient to use HA.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".