Single versus Three Doses of Intraarticular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Treatment of Early Osteoarthritis Knee Joint—A Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), which contains a pool of growth factors, appears to offer an easy solution for delivering multiple growth factors needed for tissue repair. The objective of the study is to compare between single versus three doses of intraarticular platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of early osteoarthritis knee joint. Materials and Methods A prospective comparative study was done on 100 patients with early osteoarthritis knee who were randomized into two groups in an alternating fashion—single-dose injection and triple-dose injection groups. PRP (5 mL) obtained by double-spin method was injected per knee and followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months and outcomes measured using WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index) and VAS (visual analog scale) scores. Results VAS scores showed a statistically significant difference in triple-dose group at all follow-ups. In WOMAC, such a difference was observed for stiffness subscore at all the follow-ups, but the pain subscore and total score showed an improvement only at the final follow-up with the functional assessment subscore showing no statistical difference at any follow-ups. Conclusion PRP injection appears to be effective in early symptomatic osteoarthritis with better clinical results using a triple-dose regimen.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".