MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative study of clinical and functional outcome of treatment of mild to moderate osteoarthritis of knee joint between intra articular platelet rich plasma and Hyaluronic acid injection

2020· article· en· W3096849790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C Dinesh, Dhanpal Singh, A Manikandarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaWOMACHyaluronic acidClinical efficacyIntra articularVisual analogue scaleKnee JointSurgeryAdverse effectPlateletInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of treatment of mild to moderate osteoarthritis of knee joint by using intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection versus hyaluronic acid injection. Methods: Total of 60 patients with grade 0 to grade 2 osteoarthritis were included in the study, of which 30 were treated with intra-articular PRP and the other 30 with intra-articular HA. Patients was evaluated before and after the procedure using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 6, 12, 24 weeks respectively.Results: Both groups had clinical improvement but excellent results were seen in the group of patients receiving platelet-rich plasma injections indicated by their VAS and WOMAC scores at 6, 12 week and 24 week follow-up. No severe adverse effects were observed in both the groups. Conclusions: Our comparative study analyzed that application of autologous Platelet rich plasma is a safe and effective method in the treatment of mild to moderate stages of knee osteoarthritis. Significant better results was seen with 6 months of follow-up compared to hyaluronic acid. Moreover platelet rich plasma is cost effective than hyaluronic acid injection.

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics SciencesSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207