Platelet-rich plasma and dextrose prolotherapy in osteoarthritis knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A prevalent but little-understood ailment is osteoarthritis (OA) knee. It is a typical issue in daily practice. Due to the non-reversible pathophysiology of OA, treating OA knee is difficult, and physical therapy is the cornerstone of treatment. In the literature that is currently available, no crystal-clear management protocol is given. In this modest endeavor, the role of injections of Dextrose Prolotherapy (PRL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in OA of the knee joint is evaluated. Aims and Objectives: The current study was designed to establish, the role of injections of Dextrose PRL and PRP in OA of the knee joint. Materials and Methods: The total study size consisted of 99 participants who were split into three groups at random: PRP+Physical Therapy (Group A, 33 participants), Dextrose PRL+Physical Therapy (Group B, 33 participants), and Physical Therapy alone (Group C, 33 Participants). The Western Ontario McMasters University OA index (WOMAC) and knee pain scale composite score were used to assess the primary end measure, which was the change in knee-related quality of life and pain. Results: There were no significant differences in Group A’s (66.58), Group B’s (63.06), and Group C’s (64.48) baseline WOMAC scores in our study (F=1.189, P=0.3090). Group A had the lowest WOMAC score at 6 months (50.48), followed by Group B (53.70) and Group C (59.27), indicating that the effects of the treatment varied (F=7.591, P=0.0009*). The highest improvement was seen in Group A from 3 to 6 months (6.70–12.09), with substantial intergroup differences (F=81.11 at 3 months, F=154.6 at 6 months; both P<0.0001). Conclusion: Two promising treatments for knee OA are PRP and dextrose PRL. This study demonstrates that Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and dextrose prolotherapy (PRL) offer promising, non-surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis, alleviating symptoms and enhancing quality of life without lengthy drug regimens.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".