Comparative study between platelet-rich plasma injection and steroid injection in mild–moderate shoulder osteoarthritis and their relation to quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disorder that causes joint pain and stiffness. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is considered a recent effective line of management of OA. To compare the effect of local injection of PRP versus steroid in shoulder OA and their relation to quality of life. This study included 50 patients with mild–moderate OA shoulder diagnosed according to Samilson and Prieto grading system of shoulder OA and were recruited from the outpatient clinic of physical medicine, and rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University Hospital, in the period between 2017 and 2018. The study included both sexes. Group I included 25 patients who were injected intra-articularly with PRP in the affected shoulder, and group II included 25 patients who were injected with triamcinolone acetate. They were evaluated by Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder index and visual analogue scale before and after injection. A descriptive and analytic study by SPSS, version 16, on IBM compatible computer was done. There was a highly statistical significant difference between preinjection and postinjection parameters regarding Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder score and visual analogue scale in both groups, with more improvement in the PRP group. Intra-articular injections with PRP and steroids are effective less-invasive lines of shoulder OA treatment, with superiority to PRP owing to more persistence of its effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".