The effect of dextrose prolotherapy on patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis: A comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis of interventional studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims The primary objective of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to assess the impact of dextrose prolotherapy on individuals diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods To conduct a thorough investigation, a variety of leading international databases were checked, including PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Sciences, EMBASE (Elsevier), ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Library. The search covered a period from January 2000 to the end of June 2023, which facilitated the collection of relevant studies. Results The findings of the study revealed that when the studies utilizing the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Index tool (WOMAC) were combined, patients with KOA who received prolotherapy experienced an improvement in function compared with those who received other treatments (SMD: 0.20; 95% Confidence Interval [1]: −0.11, 0.51; p value SMD = 0.221; I 2 : 78.49%; p heterogeneity < 0.001). Additionally, there was a decrease in mean pain and stiffness among patients who received prolotherapy compared with those who received other treatments or a placebo [(SMD: −0.95; 95% CI: ‐1.14, −0.76; p value SMD < 0.001; I 2 : 59.35%; p heterogeneity = 0.070) and (SMD: −0.21; 95% CI: −0.32, −0.10; p value SMD < 0.001; I 2 : 88.11%; p heterogeneity < 0.001)]. Furthermore, based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, there was a reduction of 0.81 units out of 10 in mean pain for patients with KOA who received prolotherapy (SMD: −0.81; 95% CI: −5.63, 4.10; p value SMD = 0.693; I 2 : 48.54%; p heterogeneity = 0.08). Conclusion Drawing from the data analysis performed in this meta‐analysis, it is apparent that dextrose prolotherapy exhibits promising effectiveness in reducing joint pain and stiffness, as well as improving functional performance in individuals suffering from KOA. Furthermore, it is recommended that forthcoming studies incorporate follow‐up periods to guide decisions concerning the duration of prolotherapy's effects.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".