Comparison of Intraarticular Ketorolac Versus Triamcinolone Acetone Injection in Patients of Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the analgesic and functional outcomes of intra-articular ketorolac with corticosteroids in patients of knee OA. Methods: In this randomized comparative study, we included patients of knee OA who were planned for intra-articular injections from January-2020 to December-2020 in the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine at Rawalpindi Medical University. Patients were allocated to two groups using block randomization, each block contained 30 patients and received injection of either triamcinolone (Group T) or ketorolac (Group K). VAS score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score were noted at 1 week, 1 month and at 3 months of injection. Results: Mean baseline WOMAC score was 46.60±5.64 in group K and 47.0±5.27 in group T (p-value 0.74). Mean WOMAC score was reduced significantly at 1st week and 1 months and 3 months follow-up in both groups, with insignificant statistical difference in group K and T (p-value 0.39, 0.18 & 0.15 respectively). Baseline VAS score was 7.02±1.34 in group K versus 7.27±1.03 in group T (p-value 0.36). VAS score was also reduced at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months follow-up, however the mean VAS at intervals was not statistically different between group K and T with p-value of 0.13, 0.08 and 0.49 respectively. Treatment was successful in 22 (55%) patients in group K versus 24 (60%) patients in group T (p-value 0.65). Conclusion: Intraarticular ketorolac has similar functional and analgesic outcomes as that of triamcinolone.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".