Effect of Dextrose Prolotherapy, Platelet Rich Plasma and Autologous Conditioned Serum on Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the common degenerative articular disorders that are related to decreased quality of life. Currently, novel biologic therapeutic approaches are introduced in the literature for OA management. In this study, the clinical efficiency of Dextrose prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous conditioned serum (ACS) injection on the level of pain and function in Knee OA were compared. A randomized clinical trial was directed on 92 knee OA patients. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: 30 were received dextrose prolotherapy once in a week for three weeks, 30 received autologous PRP for two times with seven days interval, and in the remaining 32 patients 2ml of ACS were injected two times every seven days. Study participants were measured through the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, the visual analogue scale (VAS), at baseline, 1 and 6 months post-intervention. Both ACS and PRP treated patients showed improvement in pain intensity and knee function during 1 and 6 months pursue; however, this progress was more significant in the ACS group. Dextrose prolotherapy showed no substantial changes in pain and function of the affected knee in treated patients. Treatment of Knee OA with ACS and PRP injections are associated with pain reduction and knee function improvement. Not only, ACS therapy is more effective than that of PRP, but also due to its less variability in processing and less reported side effects, it could be considered as a safe and effective non-surgical alternative for OA management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".