MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412995316 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70333

Effect of corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid injections on knee osteoarthritis trajectory

2025· article· en· W4412995316 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisMinimal clinically important differenceVisual analogue scaleObservational studyPhysical therapyHyaluronic acidOrthopedic surgerySurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent orthopaedic pathologies. Intra‐articular injections represent a common option to manage this condition. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the effectiveness of corticosteroids (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in affecting the knee OA trajectory over time. Methods Patients were selected from the Osteoarthritis Initiative database, a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational study, including 254 knees who received CS or HA injections. For each patient, demographic characteristics, Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grade, joint space narrowing (JSN) of the medial and lateral compartments, knee swelling, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and subsequent prosthesis implantation were analysed. Patients were followed from baseline to 36 months of follow‐up. Clinical improvements were evaluated according to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): VAS = 1.4, WOMAC = 6.4. Results Both CS and HA groups showed no overall clinical worsening from the baseline to the 36‐month evaluation. On the other hand, they both presented a worsening at short‐ and long‐term of KL OA grade (CS: p < 0.001 and p = 0.018; HA: p = 0.042 and p = 0.012) and medial JSN (CS: p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, HA: p = 0.033 and p = 0.003), while lateral JSN deteriorated only in the CS group at short‐term ( p = 0.030). The analysis of patients obtaining an improvement exceeding the MCID showed that CS outperformed HA at short‐term for WOMAC (44.9% vs. 29.0%, p = 0.022) with a tendency also for VAS (44.3% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.086). However, only HA provided a clinically relevant long‐term improvement of WOMAC ( p = 0.014, MD = 6.7) and VAS ( p = 0.024, MD = 1.2). The analysis of patients requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) before the end of the study did not show differences between CS and HA. Conclusions The symptomatic trajectory after 36 months showed no worsening in knee OA patients undergoing intra‐articular injections and different benefits based on the treatments: CS offered clinically relevant benefits compared to HA at short‐term while HA provided superior functional improvement at long‐term, with no differences between the two treatments of radiographic OA evolution, knee swelling, and progression to TKA. Level of Evidence Level II.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it