MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparative analysis of the efficacy of intra-articular injections of corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee

2020· article· en· W3016771637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anant Akash, Utkal Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPlatelet-rich plasmaWOMACHyaluronic acidVisual analogue scaleCorticosteroidViscosupplementationAnesthesiaSurgeryPhysical therapyIntra articularInternal medicinePlateletPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics SciencesSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207