A Comparative Study of Short-Term Efficacy of Intra-articular Hypertonic Saline and Hypertonic Dextrose Prolotherapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial (RCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common public health disease with an increasing prevalence. It is one of the leading causes of disability, especially in the elderly. Intra-articular hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy is one of the therapies used for KOA. There have been some articles indicating that patients receiving intra-articular normal saline as a control group of the article had improvement as well. The aim of this randomized clinical trial study was to evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular hypertonic saline in comparison with hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy in treatment of KOA.Methods: A total of 54 patients with KOA were randomized in two groups: hypertonic dextrose (28 patients) and hypertonic saline groups (26 patients). All patients received three intra-articular injections of either hypertonic dextrose or hypertonic saline at two weeks intervals. The values obtained by visual analogue pain scale (VAS), Oxford knee scale (OKS), and Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire were the outcome measures which were evaluated before, as well as 2 and 4 weeks after the injections. The data were analyzed using t-test and repeated measurement tests.Results: Both groups revealed improvements in outcome measures after 2 and 4 weeks of intervention. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups.Conclusion: We concluded that the intra-articular injection of hypertonic dextrose and hypertonic saline are both effective in the management of KOA. Hypertonic saline can be considered as another medical agent in management of KOA. However, further studies are suggested to evaluate its long-term effects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".