MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213418253 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1374575/v1

Comparison Between the Effects of Ultrasound Guided Intra-Articular Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid, and Their Combination in Hip Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· preprint· en· W4213418253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farshad Nouri, Marzieh Babaee, Parya Peydayesh, Hadi Esmaily, Seyed Ahmad Raeissadat

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaWOMACOsteoarthritisHyaluronic acidVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialClinical trialInternal medicineSurgeryPlateletPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Intra articular (IA) injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are of the new methods in the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of IA injections of PRP, HA and their combination in patients with hip OA. HA and PRP are two IA interventions that can be used in OA in the preoperative stages. Due to the different mechanisms of action, these two are proposed to have a synergistic effect by combining. Methods This is a randomized clinical trial with three parallel groups. In this study, patients with grade 2 and 3 hip OA were included, and were randomly divided into three injection groups: PRP, HA and PRP + HA. In either group, two injections with two weeks’ interval were performed into the hip joint under ultrasound guidance. Patients were assessed before the intervention, two months and six months after the second injection, using the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lequesne questionnaires. Results 105 patients were enrolled randomly in HA, PRP and PRP + HA groups. All three groups showed significant improvement in WOMAC, VAS, and Lequesne at two months and six months compared with baseline. Comparison of the 3 groups demonstrated significant differences regarding WOMAC and Lequesne total scores and the activities of daily living (ADL) subscale of Lequesne (P = 0.041, 0.001 and 0.002, respectively), in which the observed improvement at 6th month was significantly higher in the PRP + HA and PRP groups compared to the HA group. Conclusion Although all 3 interventions were associated with improvement of pain and function in patients with hip OA, the therapeutic effects of PRP and PRP + HA injections lasted longer (6 months), and the effects of these two interventions on patients' performance, disability, and ADL were superior to HA in the long run. Moreover, the addition of HA to PRP was not associated with a significant increase in the therapeutic results. Trial registration: The study was retrospectively registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) website http://www.irct.ir/, a WHO Primary Register setup, with the registration number of IRCT20130523013442N30.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicShoulder Injury and Treatment→French-language works237,207→