Comparing Intra-Articular Corticosteroids and Platelet-rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Prospective Quasi-comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: Intra-articular (I/A) corticosteroids (CS) are used for short to mid-term pain relief in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Newer therapies such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are believed to induce regenerative changes and decrease pain. Ours was a prospective, quasi, comparative study to compare the efficacy of single I/A PRP with I/A CS for treating early-to-moderate KOA. Materials and Methods: A total of 68 patients were distributed in two groups of I/A CS and PRP. Both groups were followed for pain relief using visual analog score (VAS) and functional outcome using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Femoral cartilage thickness (FCT) was measured using ultrasound (USG). Regular follow-up for 6 months was done. Results: Demographically both groups were homogenous. Both groups had significant reduction in VAS score from baseline at each follow-up (group A - 4.38 ± 0.98 [preintervention], 3.09 ± 0.9 [1 month], 2.89 ± 0.78 [3 months], and 2.24 ± 0.65 [6 months]; group B - 4.71 ± 0.93 [preintervention], 3.56 ± 0.70 [1 month], 2.01 ± 0.64 [3 months], and 1.96 ± 0.70 [6 months]) similarly, there was a statistically significant decrease in WOMAC scores in two groups, but it was more marked in group B at all follow-ups (group A - 2.68 ± 0.68 [preintervention], 2.47 ± 0.70 [1 month], 1.71 ± 0.67, [3 month], and 1.68 ± 0.76 [6 month] and group B 2.65 ± 0.81 [preintervention], 1.85 ± 0.82 [1 month], 1.41 ± 0.70 [3 month], and 1.3 ± 0.58 [6 month]). None of our groups has statistically significant difference in FCT. Conclusion: I/A PRP is a safe and efficient modality for pain relief and functional improvement compared to I/A CS for short to midterm pain relief in early-to-moderate KOA patients, but without objective evidence of cartilage regeneration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".