Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18370453›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation1997

: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled multicentre study.

H Røgind, H Bliddal, D Klokker, F Jensen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H RøgindDepartment of Rheumatology, Copenhagen Municipal Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
H Bliddal
D Klokker
F Jensen
Copenhagen Municipal Hospital · DKLeo Pharma (Denmark) · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID18370453
OpenAlexW2223169485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.