Different doses of hyaluronic acid injections in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-blind, clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many formulations and dosing regimens are available for hyaluronic acid (HA). OBJECTIVE: To compare different doses of linear, high-molecular weight (HMW) HA injections among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Hundred patients were included in this randomized, single-blinded trial and randomly divided into three HA injection groups. The first group received five weekly 20 mg HA injections, the second group received three weekly 32 mg HA injections, and the third group received a single 48 mg HA injection. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection for pain, stiffness, and function using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Quality of life, patient's global assessment, and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test scores were also evaluated. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in the WOMAC, VAS-pain, quality of life, patient's global assessment, and TUG test mean scores at all follow-up time points (p< 0.001). However, the groups showed no significant differences in WOMAC, VAS-activity pain, and patient global scores at any follow-up point. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular injections of different doses of linear HMW HA can improve pain, stiffness, function, and quality of life in patients suffering from knee OA over a six-month period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".