Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Versus Corticosteroids in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) ranks among the top causes of pain and disability globally, with intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroids (CS) frequently employed for symptom relief. HA enhances joint lubrication and has anti-inflammatory properties, while CS provides rapid pain relief through inflammation suppression. This study evaluates the effectiveness of HA and CS injections in patients with Grade II and III knee OA. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out involving 60 patients with Grade II or III knee OA (ages 40-60). The subjects were randomised to receive either intra-articular CS (40 mg triamcinolone acetonide with 2% lignocaine) or HA (6 ml, 48 mg sodium hyaluronate). At baseline, two weeks, six weeks, and three months after treatment, a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to measure pain and functional outcomes, respectively. The unpaired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA were among the statistical analyses used. RESULTS: HA and CS groups significantly improved NRS and WOMAC scores over time (p = 0.001). However, the HA group exhibited superior pain reduction and functional improvement from six weeks onward. At three months, the median NRS score was significantly lower in the HA group (2 (IQR 1-2)) compared to the CS group (3 (IQR 3-4), p = 0.001). Similarly, the HA group's WOMAC score was significantly better (53.4 ± 9.91 vs. 64.2 ± 6.8, p = 0.001). Conclusion: While both HA and CS injections effectively reduce pain and improve functionality of the knee joint, HA provides sustained pain relief and functional improvement beyond the short-term effects of CS. These findings support the use of HA as a preferred option for managing mild-to-moderate knee OA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".