Umbilical Cord PRP Is Better in Relieving Pain in Patients of Knee Osteoarthritis as Compared to Autologous Venous PRP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of umbilical cord blood platelet-rich plasma (CB-PRP) and autologous venous platelet-rich plasma (A-PRP) in the pain relief and knee functional improvement for patients with early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methodology: This observational study carried out in the Anesthesia Department of a CDA Hospital , a tertiary care hospital in Islamabad. Sixty patients with Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 1–2 knee OA were randomized into 2 groups with 30 patients in each group, in the CB-PRP and A-PRP group. Aseptically injected PRP into the joint. Outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The analysis was done by SPSS statistical software (version 26). We considered p-value < 0.05 as statistically significant. Results: CB-PRP displayed significant improvement on VAS scores at all follow-ups compared with A-PRP (weeks 4: 3.69 ± 0.87 vs. 6.31 ±1.03 p < 0.001). KOOS scores at 24 weeks were also greater in the CB-PRP compared to the placebo group (75.12 ± 6.76 vs. 62.34 ± 7.12; p < 0.001). There was a steady improvement in WOMAC scores in both groups of patients, and a significant difference in favor of CB-PRP was found at 24 weeks (2.44 ± 0.73 vs 3.00 ± 0.71, p = 0.040). There were no significant adverse events. Conclusion: CB-PRP was more effective than A-PRP in pain reduction and functional improvement total scores in early 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".