Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25300574›Full record

SynthesisOsteoarthritis and cartilage2015

Efficacy and safety of ginger in osteoarthritis patients: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

E M Bartels, V N Folmer, H Bliddal, R D Altman, C Juhl, S Tarp, W Zhang, R Christensen

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoarthritis and cartilage, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Orally consumed ginger and human health: an umbrella review.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Analysis of Effectiveness of a Supplement CombiningInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Design and Evaluation of aPharmaceutics · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

E M BartelsThe Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark. Electronic address: Else.Marie.Bartels@regionh.dk.
V N FolmerThe Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark.
H BliddalThe Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark.
R D AltmanDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA.
C JuhlInstitute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
S TarpThe Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark.
W ZhangDivision of Rheumatology, Orthopedics and Dermatology University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
R ChristensenThe Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark; Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of oral ginger for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) by carrying out a systematic literature search followed by meta-analyses on selected studies. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral ginger treatment with placebo in OA patients aged >18 years. Outcomes were reduction in pain and reduction in disability. Harm was assessed as withdrawals due to adverse events. The efficacy effect size was estimated using Hedges' standardized mean difference (SMD), and safety by risk ratio (RR). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). Out of 122 retrieved references, 117 were discarded, leaving five trials (593 patients) for meta-analyses. The majority reported relevant randomization procedures and blinding, but an inadequate intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Following ginger intake, a statistically significant pain reduction SMD = -0.30 ([95% CI: [(-0.50, -0.09)], P = 0.005]) with a low degree of inconsistency among trials (I(2) = 27%), and a statistically significant reduction in disability SMD = -0.22 ([95% CI: ([-0.39, -0.04)]; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%]) were seen, both in favor of ginger. Patients given ginger were more than twice as likely to discontinue treatment compared to placebo ([RR = 2.33; 95% CI: (1.04, 5.22)]; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%]). Ginger was modestly efficacious and reasonably safe for treatment of OA. We judged the evidence to be of moderate quality, based on the small number of participants and inadequate ITT populations. Prospero: CRD42011001777.

Indexed as

PhytotherapyZingiber officinaleHumansOsteoarthritisPlacebosPlant ExtractsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomePlacebosPlant ExtractsGingerHipKneeMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisPain

Identifiers

PMID25300574

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.