Comparison of intraarticular corticosteroid and autologous platelet rich plasma injection in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare IA corticosteroid and autologous PRP injection in OA knee, in terms of reducing stiffness, alleviating pain, and enhancing physical functionality. Study Design: Quasi-experimental study. Setting: AFIRM Rawalpindi. Period: Aug 2019 to April 2020. Methods: 70 patients with Knees OA, 40-70 years of age were included. Group A received IA 40 mg Triamcinolone Injection while Group B received PRP Injection in the affected knee. Pain evaluation was carried out using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index at baseline, at 1 month, at 3rd month, and after 6 months and mean changes calculated. Results: Among 70 patients, 36 were male (52%) and 34 were female (48%). No notable differences were observed in age (p=0.210), sex (p=0.811), and body mass index (BMI) (p=0.985) between two groups. Pre-injection pain severity assessed on NRS (p=0.217) and OA severity assessed on WOMAC (p=0.010) differed not between the two groups. At 6 months postinjection, there was significant improvement (p-value < 0.05) in pain relief in Group B (IA PRP) compared to Group A (IA steroid injection). However, at 1 month post injection NRS and WOMAC has shown more improvement between Group A and Group B, a significant difference was observed (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: PRP Injection decreases joint pain and improve quality of life better than corticosteroid injection prolonged periods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".