Comparison between 25% dextrose prolotherapy and single dose of platelet rich plasma in the management of pain and improvement of functional outcome in patients suffering from primary knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the most prevalent and disabling diseases worldwide, which decreases patients' quality of life (QoL) is knee osteoarthritis. However, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, apart from complications, could not desirably control the disease. Limited studies are available in management of primary osteoarthritis of knee with prolotherapy with 25% dextrose and platelet rich plasma (PRP). Objective was to compare between 25% dextrose prolotherapy and single dose of PRP injection in the management of pain and improvement of functional outcome in patients suffering from primary knee osteoarthritis.Methods: A comparative study was conducted to see the effectiveness of 25% dextrose prolotherapy and PRP in primary osteoarthritis (OA) of knee in the management of pain and improvement of functional outcome in sixty-six patients in age group of 50 to 70 years attending PMR department OPD, RIMS, Imphal between october2018 to April 2020. The first group received 6 ml injections of 25% dextrose 3 times at baseline, 1 month and 4th month, whereas the 2nd group received single dose of 5ml PRP at baseline.Results: In both the groups 50 mg of tramadol tablet and isometric strengthening exercise of quadriceps was given. Assessment was done at baseline, at 1, 4 and 8 months by visual analogue scale (VAS) and western Ontario and McMaster university arthritis (WOMAC) index. Statistically significant improvement was noted in VAS (5.91±0.82 to 2.65±0.94) and WOMAC score (45.25±6.68 to 20.25±7.67) at end of 8 month in first group.Conclusion: It was concluded that 25% dextrose was more effective than in management of primary osteoarthritis of knee.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".