Comparison of the effects of intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Versus Methyl Prednisolone Acetate in Iraqi patients with Knee Osteoarthritis; A Double-Blind Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT : Background: Osteoarthritis is a prevalent chronic joint condition that occurs when the cartilage, which acts as a low-friction surface between the joints, deteriorates, resulting in pain, stiffness, and swelling. There has been controversy about the effectiveness and tolerability of corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid, and about the superiority of one over the other in treating OA. Objective current study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid (HA) and methylprednisolone (MP) in the treatment of OA. Methods: One hundred and four patients with OA were randomized to receive intra-articular injection of either HA or MP, and they were followed for 3 months. Each patient from each group received a single injection at the time of enrollment. The participants and the evaluator were blinded to the nature of the injected material. The primary outcomes were to measure the change from baseline in Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and visual analogue pain scale, and to record any treatment-related adverse events. Results: there were 49 females and 3 males in the HA group (mean age 59 ± 15.5) and 46 females and 6 males in the MP group (mean age 63 ± 15.5). Both groups demonstrated improvements in WOMAC and VAS scores throughout the follow-up period. The effect size for WOMAC and VAS scores favored HA over MP from month 2 to month 3 (P < 0.05). Both interventions were relatively safe, and no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: the results showed that both interventions are effective in relieving pain and improving knee stiffness and physical function. Furthermore, the current study showed that the most important difference between the two interventions is the duration of effectiveness. The benefit of HA was maintained to 3 months while that of MP declined after 1 month.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".