MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392170561 · doi:10.1177/23259671241227863

Comparison of Conventional Dose Versus Superdose Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Triple-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial

2024· article· en· W4392170561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandeep Patel, Shivam Gahlaut, Tarkik Thami, Devendra Kumar Chouhan, Ashish Jain, Mandeep Singh Dhillon

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaOsteoarthritisWOMACRandomized controlled trialDoseVisual analogue scalePopulationPatient satisfactionSurgeryInternal medicinePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Confusion persists regarding the ideal dosage of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of 2 different single-injection PRP dosages in patients with early knee OA—a conventional 4 mL dose and a superdose of 8 mL. It was hypothesized that 8 mL of PRP would be superior to 4 mL of PRP in this patient population. Study Design: Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients with early knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1 and 2) who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups: Group A (n = 50 knees) received a 4-mL PRP injection, and group B (n = 49 knees) received an 8-mL PRP injection, both prepared using the same procedure. Patients were evaluated at the baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), the WOMAC-Pain subscale, the visual analog scale for pain, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and patient satisfaction, and results were compared between the groups. Results: The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable (group A: mean age, 51.96 ± 6.93 years; group B: mean age, 49.12 ± 9.8 3 years). Leucocyte-depleted PRP with 3.5 times concentration (final product platelet concentration, 706.74 × 10 3 –μL) was injected. The mean absolute platelet count injected was 2.82 ± 0.0012 billion in group A and 5.65 ± 0.0022 billion in group B. All patient-reported outcome scores improved significantly in both groups from the baseline to the final follow-up ( P < .001), with overall trends and results significantly better in group B than in group A ( P < .001). Patient satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up was also better in group B (96%) compared with group A (68%). Short (2 to 7 days) self-limiting complications, such as pain and stiffness, occurred more often in group B ( P < .001). Conclusion: Patients with early knee OA had significantly better improvement in pain and function when treated with an 8-mL injection of PRP compared with a 4-mL injection of PRP. The larger dose of PRP had approximately twice the number of platelets. Registration: CTRI/2020/02/023403 (Clinical Trials Registry-India identifier).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations37
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207