MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378651691 · doi:10.7759/cureus.39625

Clinical and Biochemical Correlation of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma and Corticosteroid Using Serum Matrix Metalloproteinase 3 (MMP-3) Levels in Osteoarthritis of Knee

2023· article· en· W4378651691 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vaneet Arora, Manmohan Sharma, Sandeep Bishnoi, Vakul Mahipal, Angad Singh Sandhu, Rajat Khanna, Tarun Aggarwal, Krishnadev S Yadav, Gautam Jain, Shubham M Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACPlatelet-rich plasmaVisual analogue scaleMatrix metalloproteinase 9Physical therapyInclusion and exclusion criteriaOutpatient clinicQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineKnee painMatrix metalloproteinasePlateletPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Osteoarthritis (OA) in humans is an inevitable consequence of ageing and can now be effectively managed with advancements in knowledge and understanding of the disease. The major concern in a patient suffering from this disease is the functional impairment caused by the pain. The goals in the management of OA knee include symptom relief with preservation of joint function. Despite there being a number of studies on the effectiveness of PRP and CS for knee OA, most of them have focused on patient-reported functional outcomes only. Hence, we conducted this study to assess the potential and effectiveness of a single intra-articular injection of PRP and CS in the functional improvement of knee OA patients using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and to establish the bio-modulatory effects of intra-articular PRP and CS in knee OA patients by estimating the serum matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) levels. Methodology Patients attending the outpatient department with complaints of knee pain were screened. Standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the knees were obtained. Patients with Kellgren and Lawrence (K-L) grades II and III were enrolled in our study. A total of 96 patients were included in the study after fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups (PRP and CS) by randomisation. There were 48 each in the PRP and CS groups, out of which nine were lost to follow-up, two from the PRP group and seven from the CS group. A total of 87 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were finally enrolled in the study and followed up for nine months after a single intra-articular injection. The biochemical assessment of serum levels of MMP-3 was done at baseline and in the ninth month. Accordingly, patients in the PRP group were injected with freshly prepared PRP (3 ml) within two hours of preparation, whereas those in the CS received 80 mg of methylprednisolone acetate. VAS and WOMAC were measured at baseline, and then in the first, third, sixth, and ninth month post-injection follow-ups. MMP-3 level was estimated before the injection and at the ninth-month post-injection follow-up. Data collected for both groups were analysed and compared with each other. Conclusion PRP is unquestionably a better option than CS in OA of the knee based on boosting functional activity, lowering stiffness, and reducing pain, all three of which are denoted by the WOMAC and VAS scores as the effect of PRP lasts longer than CS injections for the aforesaid issues. We could not find any significant change in levels of MMP3 post PRP and CS injections, which signifies that these two modalities do not have any effect in either preventing cartilage degeneration or promoting cartilage regeneration. Our findings have shown that PRP injections are safe, minimally invasive, and effective treatment modalities for OA knee.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207