Comparison of three treatment protocols with intra-articular low or intermediate molecular weight hyaluronic acid in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid (HA) is indicated for non-responders to non-pharmacological therapy, to analgesics or when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are contraindicated. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and costs of three different HA treatments ( Sinovial® Forte, sinovial one and hyalgan). Patients and methods: Ninety patients with grade I/II Kellgren–Lawrence knee osteoarthritis were included in three groups, the first was treated with hyalgan (weekly for 5 weeks), the second with Sinovial® Forte (weekly for 3 weeks) and the third group with a single injection of sinovial one. Results: All three treatments were effective, with an average reduction in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score of 18.9 points for hyalgan, 18.04 points for Sinovial® Forte and 17.92 points for sinovial one. The comparison of the three groups did not show any statistical difference in terms of efficacy. National health system (NHS) and social costs are, respectively, €419.12 and €853.43 for hyalgan, €338.64 and €599.22 for Sinovial® Forte, €221.56 and €308.42 for sinovial one. Conclusion: All three treatments were equally effective with no statistically significant differences; thus, the treatment with sinovial one may be considered as clinically effective as the other two regimens, but with a very efficient cost profile in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".