Comparing Mannitol and Hypertonic Dextrose Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain and Function: A Randomised Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is a chronic and age-related disease that causes joint stiffness, pain, and biomechanical changes in the joint, resulting in decreased activity and performance. Prolotherapy is one of the methods of injection therapy in the management of this disease. Drugs such as hypertonic dextrose and mannitol have been introduced as prolotherapy drugs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular injection of mannitol compared to prolotherapy with hypertonic dextrose in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Patients and Methods: A total of 48 patients with KOA were randomly divided into two groups: hypertonic dextrose (24 patients) and mannitol (26 patients). All patients received three intra-articular injections of either hypertonic dextrose or mannitol at two-week intervals. Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS), Oxford Knee Scale (OKS), and Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire scores were the outcome measures assessed before and 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the injections. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in pre-injection demographic characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). Results showed that VAS and OKS scores decreased over time (p < 0.001). Both interventions significantly improved the mean scores of WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC function, and WOMAC total score. There were not any serious side effects in any of the groups. Conclusion: The results showed that prolotherapy is an effective and safe treatment. Although both groups had improvements in outcome measures during follow-up up to 8 weeks after the intervention, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".