ArticleCureus2025
Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Versus Corticosteroids in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnee osteoarthritis (OA) ranks among the top causes of pain and disability globally, with intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroids (CS) frequently employed for symptom relief. HA enhances joint lubrication and has anti-inflammatory properties, while CS provides rapid pain relief through inflammation suppression. This study evaluates the effectiveness of HA and CS injections in patients with Grade II and III knee OA. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out involving 60 patients with Grade II or III knee OA (ages 40-60). The subjects were randomised to receive either intra-articular CS (40 mg triamcinolone acetonide with 2% lignocaine) or HA (6 ml, 48 mg sodium hyaluronate). At baseline, two weeks, six weeks, and three months after treatment, a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to measure pain and functional outcomes, respectively. The unpaired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA were among the statistical analyses used.
resultsHA and CS groups significantly improved NRS and WOMAC scores over time (p = 0.001). However, the HA group exhibited superior pain reduction and functional improvement from six weeks onward. At three months, the median NRS score was significantly lower in the HA group (2 (IQR 1-2)) compared to the CS group (3 (IQR 3-4), p = 0.001). Similarly, the HA group's WOMAC score was significantly better (53.4 ± 9.91 vs. 64.2 ± 6.8, p = 0.001). Conclusion: While both HA and CS injections effectively reduce pain and improve functionality of the knee joint, HA provides sustained pain relief and functional improvement beyond the short-term effects of CS. These findings support the use of HA as a preferred option for managing mild-to-moderate knee OA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.