↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of intra-articular hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy versus normal saline for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of intra-articular hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy versus normal saline for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2226-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina Wing Shan Sit, Ricky Wing Keung Wu, Kenneth Dean Reeves, David Rabago, Dicken Cheong Chun Chan, Benjamin Hon Kei Yip, Vincent Chi Ho Chung, Samuel Yeung Shan Wong

Abstract

Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) is a very common condition with prevalence rising with age. It is a major contributor to global disability and has a large socioeconomic burden worldwide. Conservative therapies have marginal effectiveness, and surgery is reserved for severe symptomatic KOA. Dextrose Prolotherapy (DPT) is an evidence-based injection-based therapy for chronic musculoskeletal conditions including KOA. The standard "whole joint" injection method includes intra-articular injection and multiple extra-articular injections at soft tissue bony attachments. The procedure is painful and requires intensive procedural training often unavailable in conventional medical education, which potentially limits access. Intra-articular injection offers the possibility of a less painful, more accessible treatment. The aim of this project is to assess the clinical efficacy of intra-articular injection of DPT versus normal saline (NS) for KOA. Seventy-six participants with KOA will be recruited from the community. We will conduct a single center, parallel group, superiority randomized controlled trial comparing DPT and NS injections, with blinding of physician, participants, outcome assessors and statisticians. Each group will receive injections at week 0, 4, 8 and 16. The primary outcome will be the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index pain scale (WOMAC), and secondary outcomes include WOMAC composite score, the WOMAC function and stiffness subscale, the Visual Analogue Score of pain, objective physical function tests (the 30 s chair stand, 40- m fast paced walk test, the Timed up and go test) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). All outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, and 16, 26 and 52 weeks. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed regression models. This paper presents the rationale, design, method and operational aspects of the trial. The findings will determine whether IA DPT, an inexpensive and simple injection, is a safe and effective non-surgical option for KOA. The results can be translated directly to clinical practice, with potentially substantial impact to patient care. The trial ( ChiCTR-IPC-15006617 ) is registered under Chinese Clinical Trials Registry on 17th June 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 49 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 53 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,493,843
of 23,057,470 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,994
of 3,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,327
of 326,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#56
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,057,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.