Current evidence on hyaluronic acid injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is growing evidence that hyaluronic acid (HA) injections can significantly improve pain and function in rotator cuff tendinopathy. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal parameters for HA injections. This narrative review explores the procedural considerations for HA injections in rotator cuff tendinopathy. Methods: A literature search using Pubmed and Cochrane was conducted to assess procedural considerations for HA injections in rotator cuff tendinopathy including the type of HA (linear vs. cross-linked), the molecular weight (low, moderate, and high), the combination of HA with other products, the number and frequency of injections, the injection guidance, and the adverse effects. Results: Nine randomized-controlled trials and two prospective non-randomized studies assessed the efficacy of HA injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy, and their characteristics were thoroughly analyzed. Two studies compared the efficacy of different molecular weight HA. One study assessed the efficacy of HA combined with extracorporeal shockwave therapy. Conclusion: Highlights of the findings include the clinical benefits of HA injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy, the better tolerability of low molecular weight HA compared to high molecular weight, the safer adverse effect profile of HA compared to glucocorticoid injections, and the synergistic effect of HA and extracorporeal shockwave therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".