The effectiveness of intra-articular pulsed radiofrequency in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the effects of intra-articular steroid injection (IASI) and IASI combined with intra-articular pulsed radiofrequency (IAPRF) on pain and functional activities in stage II-III knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included patients with knee pain persisting for more than 3 months. The participants were randomized into two groups: IAPRF + steroid injection (Group 1) and steroid injection only (Group 2). The injections were administered under fluoroscopic guidance, and the needle was advanced to the midline of the tibiofemoral joint. Group 1 received 8 mg of intra-articular dexamethasone after IAPRF application for 360 s at 45 V, with the temperature not exceeding 42°C. Group 2 received 8 mg of intra-articular dexamethasone only. Pain intensity and participation in daily activities were evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, respectively, before the procedure and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were included in the study. Demographic data, baseline pain levels, and functional activities did not differ between the groups. Pain intensity at 4 and 12 weeks after the procedure was lower in Group 1. Participation in daily living activities was significantly higher in Group 1 at 12 weeks after the procedure. CONCLUSION: IAPRF combined with intra-articular steroid significantly improves pain during the early-to-mid period and participation in daily living activities in the mid-term in stage II-III knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".