Comparison of Two Different Intraarticular Hyaluronic Acid Injection Regimens in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the pain and knee function between a single-dose (Sodium hyaluronate 3%, 2 ml, 60 mg) versus two-weekly (Sodium hyaluronate 1.6%, 2 ml, 32 mg) intraarticular hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in mild to moderate symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and Methods:Sixty patients with clinically and radiographically confirmed knee OA were randomly divided into two groups for two HA injection regimens.The first group received a single-dose 60 mg HA, while the second group received two-weekly 32 mg HA injections.Pain and knee function were evaluated with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) before injection and first, third, and sixth months after injections.Results: There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, and OA grade, between the two groups (p:n.s. for all variables).Our analysis showed that total WOMAC and VAS mean scores improved compared to the baseline measurements (p<0.001 for both scores).However, regarding the minimal important change (MIC) values for both VAS and WOMAC, there was no significant difference between the groups at the final follow-up (p=0.217 and p=0.500, respectively).An adequate pain reduction could not be achieved in more than half of the patients (56.6%), and almost half (45%) did not have a clinically significant increase in knee function at the final follow-up according to MIC values.No major complications were seen.Conclusion: This study failed to show a significant benefit or clinically important change after viscosupplementation regardless of the tested dosing regimens.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".