Comparison of Intra-articular Platelet Rich Plasma versus Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of prednisolone acetate and platelet rich plasma in cases of moderate knee osteoarthritis. Study design: Prospective comparative study. Place and Duration of study: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Khairpur Medical College, Khairpur Mirs, from January 2021 till December 2021 Methodology: A total of 100 patients were selected for the study and were randomly divided into two equal groups. Group C patients received intra-articular corticosteroid injection along with local anesthetic (Prednisolone acetate 40 mg + 3 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine) under ultrasound guidance. Group P patients received 3 injections of PRP, each of 8 ml volume given at one week’s interval. Patients with signs of hemodynamic compromise, sepsis, past history of any intra-articular injection in the same joint were also excluded from the study. Follow up of patients was carried out at 1, 3 and 6 months. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scale was used to assess the patients prior to injection and then at each follow up. WOMAC scale consists of three subsets i-e pain, stiffness and physical function. Results: Demographic data was comparable between both groups. Pre-injection WOMAC score in group C and P was 71.54±12.18 and 75.20±8.58 respectively (p-value=0.086); after one month of injections, it was 34.20±10.48 and 35.38±6.31 respectively (p-value=0.580). After 3 months of injection, it was 33.20±8.13 and 31.10±5.50 respectively (p-value=0.195). After 6 months of injection, it was 35.32±10.41 and 32.10±6.63 respectively (p-value=0.68). Conclusion: It is concluded in our study that intra-articular injections of prednisolone acetate and PRP are equally effective in patients of moderate knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".