Peri-articular Dextrose Prolotherapy: Investigating the Effect of Injection Site on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic health condition that affects millions of people worldwide. It not only causes pain and physical limitations but also impacts mental health, sleep, work participation, and even mortality. Peri-articular dextrose prolotherapy has been shown to reduce knee osteoarthritis pain; however, the effect of injection sites on its effectiveness is not clear. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of injection points on pain intensity, joint stiffness, and physical activity in patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent peri-articular dextrose prolotherapy. Methods: This double-blind clinical trial involved 26 patients with grade 2 and 3 bilateral knee osteoarthritis. Three times every one week, dextrose and lidocaine were injected as interventions. Injection sites were positioned within acupuncture points on one knee, but were relocated by 1.5 centimeters to the medial side of the same acupuncture points on the other knee. Pain intensity, joint stiffness, and physical activity were evaluated using the Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAS) and the Persian version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) before the intervention and at each follow-up visit at 1 and 2 months post-injection. Results: Pain intensity score, joint stiffness, physical performance, and WOMAC were significantly decreased one and two months after the intervention in both groups (P = 0.0001). The improvement in the patients of both groups was similar, and the two study groups did not have a statistically significant difference in terms of study outcomes (P = 0.37). Conclusions: Prolotherapy with dextrose is an effective treatment for 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".