ArticleClinical drug investigation1997
: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled multicentre study.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Etodolac utility in osteoarthritis: drug delivery challenges, topical nanotherapeutic strategies and potential synergies.Therapeutic delivery · 2024Review
- Management of Inflammatory Pain with Selective COX-2 Inhibitors: Promises and Facts.Current review of pain · 1999Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of etodolac and piroxicam were compared in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip (n = 111) or knee (n = 160). Special emphasis was placed on clinical gastrointestinal adverse effects. 271 patients participated in this 8-week prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. Efficacy was measured by patient's and investigator's assessment of key parameters after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment compared with baseline. Tolerability was evaluated by patients' complaints at each visit (adverse events) and laboratory tests performed before and at the end of treatment. After 4 and 8 weeks of treatment and at the end of treatment, patients' and investigators' assessments were significantly improved from baseline in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any efficacy assessment at any observation. In the etodolac group 30% reported adverse events, compared with 46% in the piroxicam group (p < 0.01). In the study, 20% in the etodolac group and 29% in the piroxicam group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (not significant). Clinically significant falls in haemoglobin occurred in 22% of patients with no significant difference between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the study indicated that etodolac 600mg per day was as effective as piroxicam 20mg per day in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Etodolac produced adverse events in a significantly smaller number of patients than piroxicam. No significant differences were found between etodolac and piroxicam with respect to incidence of clinical gastrointestinal adverse events.
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.