## 3 Results  
The demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients are summarized in Table 1.  
There was no significant difference in terms of age, gender, BMI values, or clinical features of patients (\(p>0.05\) for all comparisons). All outcome parameters (VAS, WOMAC, TUG, and ROM) were evaluated at 0, 6, and 12 weeks. VAS-rest and VAS-movement results of all groups and comparisons are given in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Characteristics and** \\ **Clinical Features** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total Patients** \\ **with KOA** \\ **(n = 75)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Dextrose** \\ **Prolotherapy (n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Ozone Therapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Home-Based** \\ **Exercise Therapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(p\) \\ \hline Age (years) & 56.7 \(\pm\) 7.3 & 56.6 \(\pm\) 7.1 & 57.0 \(\pm\) 7.6 & 56.5 \(\pm\) 7.4 & 0.967 \\ \hline Female sex—n (\%) & 64 (\%85.3) & 21 (\%84) & 22 (\%88) & 21 (\%84) & 0.899 \\ \hline Smoker—n (\%) & 6 (\%8) & 2 (\%8) & 1 (\%4) & 3 (\%12) & 0.600 \\ \hline BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 33.10 \(\pm\) 4.98 & 34.3 \(\pm\) 4.6 & 33.2 \(\pm\) 4.4 & 32.2 \(\pm\) 5.4 & 0.245 \\ \hline Duration of clinical disease (months) & 33.43 \(\pm\) 29.47 & 35.1 \(\pm\) 29.6 & 34.3 \(\pm\) 27.6 & 30.8 \(\pm\) 31.9 & 0.864 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{More symptomatic knee, n (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & 0.288 \\ \hline Right & 51 (\%68) & 18 (\%72) & 17 (\%68) & 16 (\%64) & \\ \hline Left & 24 (\%32) & 7 (\%28) & 8 (\%32) & 9 (\%36) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Grade of KOA, n (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & 0.958 \\ \hline Grade II & 46 (\%61.3) & 16 (\%64) & 15 (\%60) & 15 (\%60) & \\ \hline Grade III & 29 (\%38.7) & 9 (\%36) & 10 (\%40) & 10 (\%40) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The demographical and clinical characteristics of the patients. WOMAC-stiffness, WOMAC-function, and WOMAC-total results of all groups and comparisons of differences are given in Table 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**VAS-Rest** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Groups**} & \(p\) & \(\eta\)2 \\ \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Dextrose** \\ **Prolotherapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Ozone Therapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Home-Based** \\ **Exercise Therapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular}  & & \\ \hline Baseline value & \(5.08\pm 2.06\) & \(9.71\pm 0.55\) & \(5.84\pm 2.70\) & \(5.84\pm 2.70\) & \(\begin{array}[  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WOMAC-Stiffness**} & & & & \\ \hline Baseline & 4.20 \(\pm\) 1.80 & 5.21 \(\pm\) 1.81 & 4.72 \(\pm\) 2.01 & 0.120 & 0.047 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{6 th week} &  
One-way ANOVA test results of three groups revealed that the baseline VAS-rest score of OT (9.71 \(\pm\) 0.55) was significantly higher compared to exercise and DPT groups (5.84 \(\pm\) 2.70; 5.08 \(\pm\) 2.06 respectively) (\(p\) < 0.01, \(\eta\)2 = 0.513). There were significant improvements in VAS-rest scores of prolotherapy and OT groups in the 6 th week and 12 th week and the exercise group in the 12 th week. It is seen that exercise and DPT have a similar effect of reducing VAS-rest scores (\(p\) > 0.05). OT was the most appropriate method to reduce VAS rest scores in both in the 6 th week (\(p\) < 0.01, \(\eta\)2 = 0.217) and 12 th week (\(p\) = 0.045, \(\eta\)2 = 0.108) (Figure 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**TUG** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Groups**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(n2\)} \\ \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Devtrose** \\ **Prolotherapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Ozone Therapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Home-Based** \\ **Exercise Therapy** \\ **(n = 25)** \\ \end{tabular}  & & \\ \hline Baseline & \(11.83\pm 2.28\) & \(13.82\pm 2.55\) & \(12.55\pm 2.91\) & \(