Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33488785›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease2020

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes.

Nicola Veronese, Jacopo Demurtas, Lee Smith, Jean-Yves Reginster, Olivier Bruyère, Charlotte Beaudart, Germain Honvo, Stefania Maggi, on behalf on the European Geriatric Medicine Society Special Interest Groups in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Arthritis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Chondroprotective effects ofFood science & nutrition · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Nicola VeroneseGeriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Viale Scaduto, Palermo, 90100, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9328-289X
Jacopo DemurtasClinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Lee SmithThe Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Jean-Yves ReginsterDivision of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Olivier BruyèreDivision of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Charlotte BeaudartDivision of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Germain HonvoDivision of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Stefania MaggiNational Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Padua, Italy.
on behalf on the European Geriatric Medicine Society Special Interest Groups in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Arthritis
University of Liège · BEAnglia Ruskin University · GBNeuroscience Institute · ITUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsGlucosamine sulphate (GS) can be used as background therapy in people affected by knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of GS is of importance since its use worldwide is increasing. Therefore, the present study aimed to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with GS using an umbrella review approach.

methodsMedline, Cinahl and Embase databases were searched until 1 April 2020. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. The evidence from the RCTs was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.

resultsFrom 140 articles returned, 11 systematic reviews, for a total of 21 outcomes (37 RCTs; 3949 participants; almost all using 1500 mg/day), were included. No systematic reviews/meta-analyses of observational studies were included. Regarding the findings of the meta-analyses, 9/17 outcomes were statistically significant, indicating that GS is more effective than placebo. A high certainty of evidence, as assessed by GRADE, supported the use of GS (

conclusionGS, when used as a prescription drug (i.e. crystalline glucosamine sulphate) at 1500 mg daily dosage, can positively affect the cartilage structure, reduce pain, improve function and glucose metabolism in people with knee OA, without having a greater incidence of adverse effects than placebo.

Indexed as

glucosamine sulphateosteoarthritisumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID33488785
PMCPMC7768322
OpenAlexW3115457287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.