Clinical comparison of platelet-rich plasma injection and daily celecoxib administration in the treatment of early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics and intra-articular corticosteroid injections are the recommended first line of treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, they have serious side effects. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been posited as an effective and safer alternative treatment for knee OA. Hitherto, there is only one study comparing the effectiveness of PRP against an NSAID. AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of PRP against celecoxib in the treatment of early knee OA. METHODS: 60 patients with knee OA grade II and III were randomly alocated in two groups. Group 1 received one injection of autologous PRP in each affected knee, with a reinjection after 15 days; Group 2 received 200 mg of oral celecoxib each 24 h for a year. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and WOMAC subscales for pain, stiffness and function were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the start of the treatment. RESULTS: At the end of the study PRP was significantly better than celecoxib (p < 0.05) in improving VAS (40.40%), total WOMAC (58.95%) and WOMAC subscales of pain (50.60%), stiffness (34.13%) and function (51.90%). Significant differences remained after adjusting for age, sex or knee OA grade II or III. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular PRP is significantly better than celecoxib in improving pain, function and stiffness in early knee OA. This significant difference is independent of age, sex or knee OA grade II or III.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".