Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165187›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025

Comparison of the efficacy of ultrasound-guided dextrose 25% hypertonic prolotherapy and intra-articular normal saline injection on pain, functional limitation, and range of motion in patients with knee osteoarthritis; a randomized controlled trial.

Alireza Teymouri, Nafiseh Birang, Maryamsadat Fakheri, Aref Nasiri

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alireza TeymouriAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Nafiseh BirangDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Avenue, Shiraz, 71358-44119, Iran.
Maryamsadat FakheriDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Avenue, Shiraz, 71358-44119, Iran.
Aref NasiriDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Avenue, Shiraz, 71358-44119, Iran. nasiri.rf@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating condition that manifests as knee pain and dysfunction. Clinicians prefer non-surgical options such as intra-articular injections for mild to moderate disease. Dextrose prolotherapy (DPTx) has been shown to have a beneficial effect on knee OA in the long-term. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we aimed to compare DPTx with intra-articular normal saline injection (IA-NS) to treat knee OA in terms of effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes.

methodsThe study was a double-blind RCT with an allocation ratio of 1:1. We used block randomization to assign patients to each treatment arm. Patients with a visual analog scale of at least 4 for pain, and a Kellgren-Lawrence scale of grade 2 or 3 (mild or moderate disease) were selected and assessed according to eligibility criteria. The participants received either 5 ml of 50% dextrose water or 5 ml of 0.9% sodium chloride. The patients were followed up at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. SPSS software was used for statistical analyses. All results were reported with a confidence interval of 95%, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

resultsOverall, 55 patients were included in the study, but 50 completed the study process (25 patients in each treatment arm). The mean age of patients with knee OA was 62.98 ± 5.37, ranging from 55 to 74 years. We observed significant improvement in both groups in terms of knee pain, function, and knee extension degree at all follow-up visits (p < 0.001). Although DPTx was associated with better results than IA-NS, the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The adverse events were limited to injection-site pain and ecchymosis, which resolved by week 4.

conclusionAlthough we achieved slightly better results with DPTx, this treatment technique was not clinically or statistically superior to IA-NS in terms of knee pain and function in the short-term. Therefore, both DPTx and IA-NS are effective and well tolerated treatment options for knee OA. However, more RCTs are needed to confirm these claims.

Indexed as

ArthralgiaGlucoseOsteoarthritis, KneeProlotherapyRange of Motion, ArticularSaline SolutionUltrasonography, InterventionalAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementGlucoseSaline SolutionDextroseIntra-articular normal saline injectionKneeOsteoarthritisProlotherapy

Identifiers

PMID40165187
PMCPMC11956196

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.