Effectiveness of ProlotherapyInjection in Elderly Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND : Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a painful chronic disease in elderly population. Research has shown that prolotherapy is an effective pain-relieving treatment, particularly when used in combination with other therapies. AIMS : To evaluate the effectiveness of prolotherapy for knee OA based on The Western Ontario McMaster University OA Index (WOMAC) composite score (100 points), Knee Pain Scale, and self-reported satisfaction. We performed a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) with a double-blinded approach. METHOD: An injection saline, 10% dextrose (D10) prolotherapy, or at-home knee exercise was administered to twenty-seven elderly patients (≥60 years old) experiencing painful knee OA for at least three months. Extra- and intra-articular injections were administered at weeks 1, 4, and 7, with follow-up at weeks 11 and 15. Exercise group received in-person training and an exercise guidebook. WOMAC composite score (100 points), Knee Pain Scale, and self-reported satisfaction evaluated the outcomes. The results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. RESULT: There are no significant difference in baseline among groups. At 21 weeks, all groups exhibited improved composite WOMAC scores (p <0.02) compared to baseline. After adjusting for age, sex, and body mass index, D10 prolotherapy showed a significant WOMAC score improvement at 21 weeks (p <0.04) compared to saline and exercise (score change: 16.2 ± 4.4 vs. 8.5 ± 4.3, and 9.1 ± 3.2, respectively), surpassing the minimal clinically significant difference based on WOMAC. Self-reported satisfaction with D10 prolotherapy was high without reported adverse effects. CONCLUSION: When compared to saline injections and at-home exercises, D10 prolotherapy resulted in a clinically significant sustained improvement in pain, function, and stiffness scores for knee OA in elderly.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".