Trial reportClinical rheumatology1989
Recent clinical experience with etodolac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.
Trial report in Clinical rheumatology, 1989. 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.
- Worldwide experience with etodolac (Lodine) 300 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of osteoarthritis.Rheumatology international · 1993Trial
- Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Newer Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Patients of Osteoarthritis of Knee Joint: A Randomized, Prospective, Open-label Parallel-group Study.Indian journal of pharmacologyTrial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interim results are reported for three double-blind clinical trials comparing etodolac, a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with piroxicam, diclofenac, or naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Patients assigned to receive etodolac were given 200 mg three times a day in the diclofenac comparison and 300 mg twice a day in the other two studies. The comparator groups in the three studies received piroxicam 20 mg once a day, diclofenac 50 mg three times a day, or naproxen 500 mg twice a day. The length of the studies ranged from 6 to 12 weeks, and patients were seen at baseline and every 2 weeks thereafter. Etodolac, piroxicam, and diclofenac treatment consistently resulted in similar and statistically significant changes from baseline, indicative of improvement, in all primary efficacy variables (physicians' and patients' global assessments of improvement, pain intensity, and night pain) at every evaluation. In the comparison with naproxen, patients who received etodolac showed statistically significant improvement at most evaluations, whereas significant changes were less frequent in the naproxen group. Response rates in the three studies (response was defined as a decrease of 1 or more units in the patient's overall global evaluation, which is based on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = very good to 5 = very poor) were as follows: etodolac 72%, piroxicam 75%; etodolac 66%, diclofenac 56%; and etodolac 40%, naproxen 16%. These interim results suggest that the efficacy of etodolac compares favorably with that of other NSAIDs in the treatment of OA of the knee.
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.