Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35399636›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022

Quality of Evidence Supporting the Role of Curcuma Longa Extract/Curcumin for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Wenqiang Chen, Hongshuo Shi, Pin Deng, Zhenguo Yang, Wenbin Liu, Lu Qi, Chengda Dong, Guomin Si, Dong Guo, Lei Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Anti-osteoarthritis effect of a standardizedNutrition research and practice · 2025
    Article
  2. Efficacy ofJournal of rheumatic diseases · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wenqiang ChenCollege of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Hongshuo ShiCollege of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0012-5869
Pin DengThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7844-6171
Zhenguo YangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Wenbin LiuThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Lu QiThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Chengda DongFirst Clinical Medical College, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Guomin SiDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
Dong GuoCenter for Faculty Development, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Lei WangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2013-0705
Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNBeijing University of Chinese Medicine · CNShandong Provincial Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Well known for its good anti-inflammatory effect, curcuma longa extract (CLE)/curcumin (C) has a potential effect on osteoarthritis (OA), and a large number of researchers have completed several systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in this research area. However, the methodological and evidentiary quality of these SRs/MAs need to be further evaluated, and whether these findings provide reliable evidence for clinicians remains controversial. Methods: Two researchers collected data from seven databases for SRs/MAs that are about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CLE/C for OA. Assessment was made for the SRs/MAs included in this article by means of the Assessment System for Evaluating Methodological Quality 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic (ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: Nine published SRs/MAs were included in our study. According to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment, only one SR/MA was assessed as high quality. According to the ROBIS evaluation results, only 2 SRs/MAs have a low risk of bias. According to the results of the PRISMA checklist assessment, only 2 SRs/MAs studies fully reported the checklist, while other studies had reporting flaws. According to GRADE, a total of 59 effect sizes extracted from the included SRs/MAs were evaluated, among which no effect size was rated as high. Conclusions: CLE/C may be an effective and safe complementary treatment for OA. However, further standard SRs/MAs and RCTs are needed to provide an evidence-based medical rationale for this.

Identifiers

PMID35399636
PMCPMC8991401
OpenAlexW4220897453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.