The Clinical Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Conventional Drug Injection in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis is a common chronic degenerative joint disease in middle-aged and elderly people. Intra-articular injection for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis is a regularly utilized nonsurgical treatment in modern medicine. Hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are two frequently employed intra-articular devices. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is an accepted nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic KOA, and platelet-rich plasma is a popular option in the treatment of KOA in recent years. The purpose of this research is to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) on the pain score scale, knee function, and related inflammatory biomarkers in KOA patients using a clinical randomized controlled trial. Participants are being randomized into either the hyaluronic acid (HA) or into the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) group. All patients receive 4 weeks of treatment (once a week), and well-being support and quadriceps training (3 times a week). The primary outcomes are measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes include the activities of daily living score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein testing, interleukin-6 levels, and X-ray examination. In order to monitor the occurrence of irregularities and abnormalities, patients are assessed at each visit, and restorative treatment is given if necessary. The results of this clinical trial will verify the efficacy of PRP and HA in the treatment of KOA and provide important evidence for the clinical treatment of KOA. The trial was enlisted at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 26 September 2020 (ChiCTR2000038635).
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 | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.007 |
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".