Injection of Bone Marrow Aspirate for Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare the efficacy of a single, intra‐articular, nonconcentrated bone marrow aspirate (BMA) injection in comparison to cortisone for the treatment of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis (GHJ OA). Methods Inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 18 and 75 with a diagnosis of GHJ OA on radiograph. Patients were randomized to receive an ultrasound‐guided, intra‐articular cortisone injection or BMA injection (without concentration). The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were the QuickDASH, EuroQOL 5‐dimensions 5‐level questionnaire (EQ‐5D‐5L) and visual analogue scale. Results The study included 25 shoulders of 22 patients who completed baseline and 12 months’ patient‐reported outcome measures (12 shoulders received cortisone, 13 shoulders received BMA) after the study was terminated early by changes in Health Canada regulations. Baseline characteristics demonstrated a significant difference in the ages of the 2 groups, with the BMA group being older (61.6 vs 53.8 mean years, P = 0.021). For the BMA group, a significant improvement was seen in the WOOS index ( P = 0.002), the QuickDASH ( P < 0.001), and the EQ‐5D‐5L pain dimension ( P = 0.004) between baseline and 12 months. No significant difference was seen for any outcome in the cortisone group between baseline and 12 months. No significant difference was demonstrated between changes in the WOOS scores from baseline to 12 months when compared between groups ( P = 0.07). However, a significant difference in changes in scores was seen in the QuickDASH ( P = 0.006) and the EQ‐5D‐5L pain scores ( P = 0.003) and the EQ‐5D‐5L health scores ( P = 0.032) in favor of BMA. Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that patients with GHJ OA treated with BMA have superior changes in the QuickDASH and EQ‐5D‐5L pain and health scores but not in the WOOS outcomes measures at 12 months post injection when compared to patients treated with cortisone. However, because of the limited number of patients as a result of the early termination of the study, larger randomized studies are required to confirm these findings. Level of Evidence Level II, randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".