Comparison of the Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Hyaluronic Acid and the Combination of Both in the Treatment of Mild and Moderate Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is by far the most common form of arthritis characterized by focal loss of articular cartilage, subchondral osteosclerosis, osteophyte formation at the joint margin, and remodeling of joint contour with enlargement of affected joints. This randomized, clinical trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) and Hyaluronic Acid (HA) as individual treatments and PRP in combination with HA in the treatment of mild to moderate knee Osteoarthritis (OA). The study was conducted among 89 patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka, Bangladesh. Patients were randomly allocated to one of the three interventions: HA (n=30), PRP (n=30), or HA+PRP (n=29). Patients in HA group received 3 intra-articular knee injections with 1 week interval while patients in PRP group and PRP+HA group received 2 intra-articular knee injections with 2 week interval. Functional outcome of the treatment were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaire at baseline and after 1,3,6 and 9 months of treatment. Majority of the patients in all groups were female where mean age of the patients were about 50 years. Pain scores in VAS scale significantly reduced in PRP group when compared to HA group and also in PRP+HA when compared to HA group which persist till nine months (p<0.05). No significant statistical difference was found in VAS scores between PRP and PRP+ HA group. WOMAC pain scores also significantly reduced in PRP group when compared to HA group and also in PRP+HA when compared to HA group (p<0.05). WOMAC stiffness significantly reduced in PRP+ HA group when compared to HA group at three month (p<0.001) and at six month (p=0.011). At nine month, physical activity scores significantly reduced in PRP group compared to HA group (p=0.002) and in PRP+HA when compared to HA group (p<0.001). No significant reduction was observed in WOMAC scores when the outcome of PRP+HA was compared with PRP alone. PRP provides better functional outcome than HA. The combination of PRP and HA also provides better outcome than HA alone but does not provide better outcome than PRP alone. J Dhaka Medical College, Vol. 28, No.2, October, 2019, Page 172-178
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".