Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in pain management of osteoarthritis with developmental dysplasia of the hip: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluates the efficacy of administering platelet-rich plasma (PRP) compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) for pain management hip osteoarthritis (OA) secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). It highlights PRP treatment as a slightly more effective or equivalent treatment for reducing hip pain in such cases. From 2019 to 2021, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 42 patients who consented to participate. They were divided into two groups: one receiving intra-articular PRP injections and the other HA injections. The primary focus of the study was pain relief, measured using the pain-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)-pain scores over a 24-week period. Functionality was assessed as a secondary outcome. The results showed significant pain reduction in both PRP and HA groups compared to their baseline pain levels. Notably, the PRP treatment group exhibited a marginally higher improvement in pain-VAS scores (38.5) than the HA group (18.7; P = .041). However, the difference in WOMAC-pain scores between the groups was not statistically significant (4.3 for PRP vs. 2.9 for HA; P = .245). The Kellgren–Lawrence grade was the only factor significantly associated with the improvement in pain-VAS scores within the PRP group. The study finds that PRP treatment is at least as effective as HA treatment in reducing hip pain for OA secondary to DDH. Treatment with PRP showed notably better pain-VAS scores compared to HA, highlighting its potential. Therefore, intra-articular PRP injections are a viable alternative to HA for effectively reducing pain in OA secondary to DDH.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".