MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414400208 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000044655

Comparative efficacy of polyacrylamide hydrogel versus hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids in knee osteoarthritis: A retrospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W4414400208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bilal Aykaç, Mustafa Dinç, Özgür Oktay Nar, Recep Karasu, Hünkar Çağdaş Bayrak

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scaleHyaluronic acidBody mass indexMethylprednisoloneCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates whether intra-articular polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) provides superior outcomes compared to conventional injections, namely hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroid, in managing knee osteoarthritis (KOA). This retrospective cohort study included primary KOA patients (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II-IV) treated between January 2023 and December 2024 with 1 of 3 intra-articular injections: iPAAG (6 mL Arthrosamid), HA (2 mL, 60 mg Artroaid), and Steroid (40 mg methylprednisolone acetate, Arhropan). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clinically meaningful improvements were evaluated using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds. A total of 150 patients (n = 50 per group) were included. The groups were comparable at baseline in median age (HA: 66; Steroid: 69.5; iPAAG: 69.5; P = .104), sex (female: 72%, 62%, 66%; P = .566), median body mass index (30.4, 30.6, 30.7 kg/m2; P = .716), and Kellgren-Lawrence distribution (P = .765). Baseline median VAS was 7, dropping to 3 in all groups at 3 months (P < .001). At 6 months, they rose to 4 (HA), 5 (Steroid), and 4 (iPAAG) (P < .001). By 12 months, VAS returned to baseline in HA and Steroid, while iPAAG remained slightly improved (P = .219). iPAAG outperformed Steroid at 6 months (P < .001), but not HA (P = 1.000). No significance at 12 months (P = .128). Baseline median Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were 49.5 (HA), 59.5 (Steroid), and 57 (iPAAG), improving at 3 months to 42.5, 48.5, and 45 (P < .001). At 6 months, scores were 45, 57, and 47.5 (P < .001). At 12 months, HA and Steroid returned to baseline, while iPAAG remained stable (P = .979). iPAAG was better than Steroid at 6 months (P = .008), but not HA (P = .066). Although overall differences at 12 months were significant (P = .044), pairwise comparisons were not. iPAAG showed the highest patient acceptable symptom state rates (72%, 54%, and 42% at 3, 6, and 12 months), and greatest minimal clinically important difference achievement at 3 and 6 months, though without significant intergroup differences (P > .05). iPAAG offers comparable short-term efficacy and modest advantage at 6 months. However, long-term superiority is limited. It may be a complementary option in individualized osteoarthritis management. Further prospective studies are needed to define its optimal use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207