A comparison between hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy and conventional physiotherapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) with conventional physiotherapy (CPT) in improving symptoms in females with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The present study included 60 patients with a diagnosis of knee OA. The patients were randomly assigned to the HDP (n=30) and CPT (n=30) groups. The patients in the HDP group were treated with a dextrose injection into the knee joint (25% dextrose) and around the knee (15% dextrose) in two sessions for 1 month, while those in the CPT group received a hot pack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound in five sessions a week for 4 weeks. Prior to commencing the treatment, and at 1 and 3 months post-treatment, all the patients were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the goniometric measurement of active knee range of motion (ROM), a 50-m walking test and isokinetic knee muscle strength measurements. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups as regards the demographic characteristics at pre-treatment (P>0.05). However, at 1 and 3 months post-treatment, the scores of all the outcome parameters were significantly improved in the HDP group compared with the CPT group (P<0.05 for all). In both groups, a significant improvement was observed in the VAS scores, WOMAC total values and ROM following the treatments, with the greatest improvement observed in the HDP group (P<0.001). The isokinetic quadriceps peak torque measurements were increased in both groups following treatment. All the scores exhibited a statistically significant improvement in the HDP group at both 1 and 3 months post-treatment. On the whole, the results of the present study demonstrate that both HDP and CPT are effective treatment modalities to relieve pain, and increase functionality and strength in patients with knee OA. However, greater improvements in pain and functionality can be achieved with prolotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".