EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA AND OZONE THERAPY ON PAIN AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A RETROSPECTIVE TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Objective:</strong> There are many methods for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, especially among conservative treatments, intra articular injection methods have not been shown to be superior to each other. In our study, we compared the effects of ozone therapy and platelet-rich plasma on pain and functionality. <strong>Material and Methods: </strong>This retrospective clinical study included patients aged 30-70 years who received ozone and Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Both groups received 3 sessions of ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection. The demographic characteristics of the patients, such as age and gender, were recorded. Pain was assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) before and 3 months after treatment, functionality with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and quality of life with the Short Form-12 (SF-12). <strong>Results:</strong> The mean age of the 54 patients included in the study was 58.53±8.25 years. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of age, gender, pre-treatment NRS, WOMAC, and SF-12 values. There were significant differences in the NRS, WOMAC, and SF-12 values in both ozone and PRP groups after treatment compared to before treatment. However, this difference was not found to be significant between the groups. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> Both PRP and ozone therapy are effective short term treatments for KOA. There is no evidence that one is more effective than the other.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".