ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Amorphous calcium carbonate as a novel potential treatment for osteoarthritis in dogs: a pilot clinical study.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel therapeutic strategies for osteoarthritis: from mechanistic insights to precision medicine.Bone research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Amorphous calcium carbonate (ACC) is a potential new treatment for canine osteoarthritis (OA) with novel mechanisms based on local pH modulation and targeting bone remodeling, inflammation, and pain. The aim of this pilot exploratory clinical study was to obtain initial data on the potential efficacy and safety of ACC in OA dogs and to determine if further investigation was appropriate using similar assessment methods. Materials and methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study, 41 client-owned dogs were allocated in a 2:1 ratio to ACC: placebo given orally for 56 days. Efficacy assessments included improvements in pain and mobility using owner questionnaires [Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI), Client Specific Outcome Measure (CSOM), and Veterinary Orthopedic Scores (VOS)]. Safety in the study population was monitored by veterinary examinations, clinical pathology, and adverse events. Results: Fifty-three dogs were screened, of which 41 enrolled and served for the safety assessment. Thirty-six dogs were found evaluable for initial efficacy assessment. Three dogs given placebo (21.4%) and one given ACC (4.5%) were removed before day 56 due to owner-perceived pain and were considered treatment failures. There were no serious adverse events or clinically significant treatment-related effects in the study. Overall, ACC was found safe in the small study population. On day 56, proportionally more ACC than placebo dogs were treatment successes based on CBPI (45.5% vs. 21.4%) and CSOM (63.6% vs. 30.8%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant ( Limitations: The relatively small number of dogs limited the statistical power of the pilot study in evaluating the efficacy and safety of ACC. Conclusion: Study results support the conduct of larger, appropriately powered studies using similar assessments to confirm whether ACC may be a safe and effective treatment for OA in dogs.
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.