Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Intra-Articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis: Results of an Open-Label Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous source of growth factors, and hyaluronic acid (HA) are among the minimally invasive treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA). This trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of intra-articular injection of PRP with HA (as one of the standard treatments) on mild to moderate knee OA. METHODS: In this phase I open-label clinical trial, 10 patients underwent intra-articular PRP injection and 10 others received HA injection. At baseline (pre-injection) visit and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-injection, clinical assessments were performed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire. Physical examinations of the knee, including crepitation and range of motion (ROM) were performed at each visit. The follow-up responses were compared with the baseline visit. RESULTS: The PRP treatment was ascertained to be safe and caused no adverse effects. Significant improvements in the majority of KOOS subscales and VAS were found throughout the entire 12-month follow-up, following the PRP injections. HA injection, however, caused only one month significant improvement in the majority of patient-reported outcomes. In the majority of visits, the extent of improvements in the scores of KOOS subscales, as well as the extent of reduction in VAS were significantly greater in PRP recipients, compared to HA recipients. The ROM in both groups slightly increased after interventions. The frequency of coarse crepitation, which was detected in 100% of the patients in both groups at the baseline visit, decreased significantly to fine crepitation at the first follow-up visit in 80% and 40% of the PRP and HA recipients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular injection of PRP or HA alleviates symptoms and pain and improves functionality and physical examinations in patients with knee OA. However, PRP therapy produces greater and longer-lasting improvements in most of the outcome parameters compared to 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".