MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Prospective, Multi-Center, Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation vs A Single Injection Of Hyaluronic Acid In The Management Of OA Knee Pain

2017· other· en· W6965038516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisKnee painHyaluronic acidClinical trialRandomized controlled trialAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDKnee ostheoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of chronic knee pain. Conservative treatments, such as hyaluronic acid injections (HA), have traditionally been utilized to treat OA of the knee. A single injection of HA is the standard treatment protocol. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) is a minimally invasive option for pain management. CRFA delivers targeted thermal damage to neural tissue which interrupts the transmission of pain signals.OBJECTIVESThis prospective,randomized,multi-center study was conducted to compare pain relief,functional improvement,Global Perceived Effect and safety of CRFA to HA to treat OA knee pain.MATHERIAL AND METHODS177 patients underwent diagnostic block injections. Patients who had a minimum of 50% pain relief from the diagnostic blocks were randomized to receive either CRFA or single HA injection.175 patients were treated (n=88 CRFA and n=87 HA).158 patients (n= 76CRFA and 82 HA) were subsequently evaluated for pain (numerical rating scale= NRS),function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index WOMAC), Global Perceived effect (GPE), and safety at 1,3,and 6 months.RESULTS Subjects receiving CRFA had a mean NRS score reduction of 4.1 points compared to subjects receiving HA, who had a mean reduction of 2.5In the CRFA group, 71,1% of patients had >50% pain relief after 6 months, compared to 37.8% in HA groupAfter 6 months, the mean total WOMAC score for subjects receiving CRFA was 33.6 compared to 53.6 for those who received HA. Mean WOMAC score improvement from baseline was 48.2% for CRFA.At 6 months 72.4% of subjects in the CRFA group reported improvement in GPE compared to 40.2% in the HA group.SAFETYNo serious adverse events related to either procedure were noted and overall adverse event profiles were similar.DISCUSSIONCRFA treated patients demonstrated a significant improvement in pain and overall function compared to patients treated with HA.CRFA is a safe and effective treatment for pain related to 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207