The Effect of Intra-articular Injection of Hypertonic Saline Versus Dextrose Prolotherapy for Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common chronic arthritis worldwide, often causing knee stiffness, pain, and functional impairment. This study aims to compare the effects of Dextrose prolotherapy and Hypertonic saline prolotherapy on knee pain, stiffness, and function in patients with knee OA. Methods: The study was conducted as a randomized clinical trial. Patients meeting radiological and clinical criteria for knee OA were sequentially contacted and provided written informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned to receive injections of Hypertonic saline (n = 30) or dextrose prolotherapy (n = 33). The primary outcome measure was clinical manifestations assessed using the compound score of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Results: Within-group analysis revealed significant differences in outcome scores for both treatments after 6 months. Both Hypertonic saline and dextrose prolotherapy showed significant improvements in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), WOMAC composite score, pain, stiffness, and function. In the first month, VAS scores were higher with hypertonic saline compared to dextrose. Additionally, stiffness decreased more with dextrose than with hypertonic saline. After 6 months of treatment, although not statistically significant, hypertonic saline showed better outcomes in the mean WOMAC composite score and pain sub-score compared to dextrose. Conclusions: Among patients with knee OA, Hypertonic saline prolotherapy administered by a trained specialist yields safe and significant improvements in knee pain, stiffness, and function. Our results suggest no significant difference in VAS and WOMAC scores between hypertonic saline and dextrose 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".