MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393083957 · doi:10.1142/s0218957724500027

EFFECTS OF PROLOTHERAPY WITH HYPERTONIC DEXTROSE IN PATIENTS WITH KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

2024· article· en· W4393083957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryam Sahebari, Zahra Mirfeizi, Parisa Noorabadi, Zahra Rezaieyazdi, Mandana Khodashahi, Kamila Hashemzadeh, Zohreh Nobakht, Maliheh Dadgarmoghaddam, Bita Abbasi, Forouzan Amerizadeh, Masoumeh Salari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Musculoskeletal Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProlotherapyMedicineOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The role of prolotherapy in the healing process of damaged tissues has been confirmed in patients with degenerative joint disease. Hypertonic dextrose has been introduced as the most common solution in prolotherapy for reducing pain and improving mobility in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). This study aimed to compare the KOA patients undergoing hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) with the placebo in terms of pain intensity and functional level. Methods: This triple-blind study randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted on patients with mild to moderate KOA who were referred to the Rheumatic Diseases Research Center (RDRC), Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran, in the year 2021. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups of the DPT ([Formula: see text] = 47) and normal saline placebo prolotherapy ([Formula: see text] = 50) intra- and peri-articular knee joints. Treatment was monthly for three months. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) were completed before and after intervention (weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16). The variables were compared between the two study groups at a significance level of less than 0.05 ([Formula: see text] < 0.05). Results: The WOMAC score improved significantly compared to the baseline in both groups ([Formula: see text] < 0.005). An increase in WOMAC score (the last follow-up compared to baseline) was 97.4% and 85.7% in DPT and placebo groups, respectively ([Formula: see text]= 0.06). Before the intervention and also after the first injection, the AKPS score in the normal saline group was significantly better than the dextrose group ([Formula: see text]= 0.03). The AKPS score did not differ significantly between the two groups ([Formula: see text] > 0.05) in the next two visits and two-month follow-ups. Improvement of AKPS score in the last follow-up compared to baseline was reported in 66.7% and 68.4% of patients in the normal saline group and dextrose group, respectively, ([Formula: see text]= 0.86). Conclusion: Prolotherapy as intra- and peri-articular injections of hypertonic dextrose could be used to relieve pain and improve functional status in patients with mild to moderate KOA as much as a placebo does. Although no remarkable difference was observed between dextrose and placebo in the outcomes, the rate of improvement (last follow-up compared to the baseline) was relatively higher in the dextrose group than in the normal saline group.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Musculoskeletal ResearchSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207