MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W36708716

[Therapeutic effectiveness of intra-knee-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma on knee articular cartilage degeneration].

2011· article· en· W36708716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ming Li, Changqing Zhang, Zisheng Ai, Ting Yuan, Yong Feng, Weitao Jia

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaSodium hyaluronateOsteoarthritisWOMACSurgeryKnee JointCartilageArticular cartilageBody mass indexArticular cartilage damageAdverse effectHyaluronic acidSignificant differenceInternal medicinePlateletPathologyAnatomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can enhance the chondrocyte proliferation and repair of cartilage defects. To explore the safety and efficacy of intra-knee-articular injection of PRP to treat knee articular cartilage degeneration by comparing with injecting sodium hyaluronate (SH). METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients (30 knees) with knee articular cartilage degeneration were selected between January 2010 and June 2010. According to different injections, 30 patients were randomly divided into PRP group (test group, n = 15) and SH group (control group, n = 15). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Test group received 3.5 mL of PRP intra-knee-articular injections while control group received 2 mL of SH during the same time period. Both treatments were administered in series of 3 intra-knee-articular injections at 3-week intervals. Then, adverse reactions were recorded. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Lequesne index were used for evaluation of treatment results. RESULTS: The patients of 2 groups were followed up 6 months. There were significant differences in IKDC score, WOMAC score, and Lequesne index between pre- and post-injection in 2 groups (P < 0.05); no significant difference was found between different time points (3, 4, and 6 months) in test group (P > 0.05), while significant differences were found between the postoperative 6th month and the postoperative 3rd and 4th months in control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in IKDC score, WOMAC score, and Lequesne index between 2 groups within 4 months (P > 0.05), but the effectiveness of test group was significantly better than that of control group at 6 months after injection (P < 0.05). Adverse reactions occurred in 12 patients (31 injections) of test group and in 12 patients (30 injections) of control group. No significant difference in onset time, termination time, and duration of adverse reactions were found between 2 groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Intra-knee-articular injection of PRP to treat knee articular cartilage degeneration is safe, which can alleviate symptoms of pain and swelling and improve the quality of life of patients; however, further data of large samples and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the safety and effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→