MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

E059 A retrospective analysis of the effectiveness & safety of platelet rich plasma injections in primary osteoarthritis in knee joint, in patients attending a tertiary care hospital, Sri Lanka; a cohort study

2023· article· en· W4366832092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rajika M Wickramarachchi, S. Janagan, W. A. E. Udeshika, Gajanayake Chandana, YMS Udara, Sanuri Fernando

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisRetrospective cohort studyBody mass indexWOMACPhysical therapyPopulationInternal medicineCohortRheumatologyQuality of life (healthcare)Alternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common, challenging condition and is a leading cause of disability and impaired quality of life in Sri Lanka due to its ageing population and obesity pandemic. Conventional therapies for OA such as non-pharmacological measures, analgesics and surgical interventions have their own limitations. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been suggested as a second-line treatment by European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for early and moderate OA, which needs further evaluation to prove its efficacy and safety. This is a retrospective analysis of the effectiveness and safety of PRP injections, in a cohort of patients, attending the National Hospital of Sri Lanka for primary knee OA. Methods A total of 33 patients who had been treated with PRP injections were examined immediately prior to injection as well as 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months later. Details of clinical variables, demographic data, and assessment of efficacy and safety were gathered by the pre-treatment form filled at the routine clinics. Pre-treatment form is comprised of inclusion and exclusion criteria, gender, biochemical investigations, radiological evidences in the knee joint, usage of previous pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment received by the patient, weight, height and body mass index (BMI). Pain at the site of infection, stiffness, bleeding and local infection were examined as measures of safety. Pain score according to visual analogue scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score were used as measures of effectiveness. Descriptive statistics was used to present demographic and clinical variables. Friedman test with Wilcoxon signed rank test for pairwise comparisons were used in the analysis of related samples of pain scores and WOMAC scores pre and post PRP therapy in order to assess effectiveness. Results Stiffness following PRP injection was experienced by 8 (24.2%) participants but none of the patients developed pain and bleeding. Median of pain score before PRP injection was 7.00 and it was reduced to 3.00 after 6 months of therapy. Median of WOMAC score before PRP injection was 54.00 and it was reduced to 30.00 after 6 months of therapy. Significant reduction of pain score (p = 0.000) as well as WOMAC score (p = 0.000) was observed. A significant gradual reduction of both pain score and WOMAC score was observed at 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post PRP injection (p = 0.000). Conclusion PRP injections had a good safety profile in our study. A similar trend of improvement of knee OA was observed in terms of both pain score and WOMAC score which ensures its effectiveness. However, with a guidance of these data in Sri Lankan patients, a randomized double blinded clinical trial is recommended. Disclosure R.M. Wickramarachchi: None. S. Janagan: None. W. Udeshika: None. G. Chandana: None. Y. Udara: None. S. Fernando: None.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207