Comparative study between the effect of neural versus intra-articular dextrose prolotherapy on pain and disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease which presents with joint pain and stiffness and reduced mobility. Knee OA is the commonest cause of disability in adults. Dextrose prolotherapy is a new option used to treat mild-to-moderate knee OA. Neural prolotherapy (NPT) is multiple small injections under the skin targeting painful areas with natural substances. The aim of work was to evaluate and compare neural prolotherapy versus intra-articular dextrose prolotherapy effect on relieving pain and improving disability of knee OA. Results VAS and WOMAC scores improved significantly immediately and at 3 and at 6 months, respectively, in group I compared with group II (P < 0.001). The decrease in VAS scores and all the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores in group I along the follow-up period in comparison with the baseline scores was statistically significant (P < 0.001). In group II, only WOMAC pain and stiffness scores improved significantly. ROM showed insignificant increase in both groups at 3 and 6 months assessment. On follow-up, range of motion increased in both groups and reached significance in group I (P = .002). Conclusion Dextrose prolotherapy both intra-articular and periarticular (neural) is a very effective and cheap therapy for knee OA with good patient selection. Neural prolotherapy significantly relieves pain and improves function in patients with knee osteoarthritis when compared with intra-articular prolotherapy thus avoiding hazards of intra-articular knee injections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".