MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379375630 · doi:10.7759/cureus.38513

Comparison of Functional Outcome of Single Versus Multiple Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Early Osteoarthritis Knee

2023· article· en· W4379375630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madhavan Parmanantham, Hariprasad Seenappa, Subhashish Das, Arun H Shanthappa

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaWOMACOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scaleArthritisOrthopedic surgeryObservational studyKnee painPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryPlateletAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability and has a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising treatment for various orthopaedic conditions, such as tendinopathies, nonunion, and arthritis of the knee. We sought to determine whether a single intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection has better functional and pain outcomes when compared with multiple (two) articular platelet-rich plasma injections given in the early stages of OA of the knee, measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and the visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) at the sixth week, third month, and sixth month. Materials and methods The prospective observational study was conducted among patients diagnosed with early OA who presented to the Department of Orthopaedics, R. L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar, Karnataka, India, between January 2020 and June 2021. A total of 64 patients were divided into: (i) S-PRP group (34 patients), which received a single PRP injection, and (ii) M-PRP group (30 patients), which received multiple (two) PRP injections, one on presentation and the second in the thirdmonth. VAS and WOMAC scores to assess functional outcomes were used at the first visit before the intervention and at the sixth week, third month, and sixth month. Results The average age of the patients was 55.26 years in the S-PRP group and 51.13 years in the M-PRP group. Both genders were equal among study participants in the M-PRP group, but 79.4% were females in the S-PRP group. In the S-PRP group, 74% had grade II OA and 26% had grade I OA. In the M-PRP group, 60% had grade II OA and the remaining 40% had grade I OA. The decreasing trend of pain and functional limitation, which was measured by VAS and WOMAC, respectively, was observed in both groups at pre-injection, sixth week, third month, and sixth month. These differences were statistically significant. The mean difference in VAS score between the pre-injection period and at six months was 4 in the S-PRP group, whereas it was 5.77 in the M-PRP group, and this was statistically significant (p-value = 0.001). Thus, multiple PRP injections have a greater response to pain reduction when compared to single PRP injections, according to the VAS score. According to the WOMAC score, there is no statistically significant difference in the treatment response with PRP injection between the S-PRP and M-PRP groups at any follow-up period. Conclusion According to the VAS score, single PRP injections have a lower pain score than multiple PRP injections until three months of follow-up, while at six months, single PRP injections have no better effect than multiple PRP injections. But multiple PRP injections have a higher reduction in the intensity of pain when compared to single PRP injections during the follow-up period. According to the WOMAC score, there is no statistically significant difference in the treatment response with PRP injection between S-PRP and M-PRP groups.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207