Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2005
The effect of glucosamine sulphate on osteoarthritis: design of a long-term randomised clinical trial [ISRCTN54513166].
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methylsulfonylmethane and boswellic acids versus glucosamine sulfate in the treatment of knee arthritis: Randomized trial.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology · 2016Trial
- A clinical study on glucosamine sulfate versus combination of glucosamine sulfate and NSAIDs in mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2012Trial
- The impact of pharmaceutical care on the efficacy and safety of transdermal glucosamine sulfate and capsaicin for joint pain.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Work-related outcomes in randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials in osteoarthritis - are they adequately reported in journal publications? A systematic review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Dietary supplements as disease-modifying treatments in osteoarthritis: a critical appraisal.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacological treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) can be divided into two groups: symptom-modifying drugs and disease-modifying drugs. Symptom-modifying drugs are currently the prescription of choice for patients with OA, as disease-modifying drugs are not yet available in usual care. However, there has recently been a lot of debate about glucosamine sulphate (GS), a biological agent that is thought to have both symptom-modifying and disease-modifying properties. This assumption has yet to be proved. The objective of this article is to present the design of a blind randomised clinical trial that examines the long-term symptom-modifying and disease-modifying effectiveness of GS in patients with hip OA. This trial is ongoing and will finish in March 2006. METHODS/
designPatients with hip OA meeting the ACR-criteria are randomly allocated to either 1500 mg of oral GS or placebo for the duration of two years. The primary outcome measures, which are joint space narrowing (JSN), and change in the pain and function score of the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), are determined at baseline and after two years of follow-up during the final assessment. Intermediate measures at three-month intervals throughout the trial are used to study secondary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures are changes in WOMAC stiffness score, quality of life, medical consumption, side effects and differences in biomarker CTX-II.
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.