Trial reportScientific reports2025
Impact of topical cetylated fatty acid cream on hand osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Effects of orally administered cetylated fatty acids on symptoms and functional capacity in patients with knee osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Trial
- Hand Osteoarthritis: Molecular Mechanisms, Randomized Controlled Trials, and the Future of Targeted Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In addition to topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that are used in hand osteoarthritis, there are other drugs that can reduce pain in osteoarthritis, such as topical cetylated fatty acids. Previous studies have reported that topical CFAs are effective in all knee OA patients, with slightly higher evidence for those with advanced disease. The mechanism of pain in OA knee and OA hand is similar. Furthermore, there are no previous studies on CFAs in OA hand. Patients fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hand OA participated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were over 40 years of age, had at least one tender joint, and had a joint pain visual analog score of 30-60 mm. Patients received topical CFA (n = 36) or placebo (n = 36) twice daily for six weeks. The primary outcome was the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. The secondary outcome measures included the Visual Analog Score (VAS), Patient Global Assessment (PGA), and skin irritation at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. At baseline, no statistically significant differences were observed among the assessment parameters. Upon concluding the 6-week study period, it was evident that patients in the CFA group exhibited a notably lower mean pain score compared to those in the placebo group (2.2 ± 1.9 vs. 3.2 ± 2.2, P < 0.05) and achieved superior PGA scores (2.1 ± 1.7 vs. 3.1 ± 2.2, P < 0.05). However, no significant disparity was detected in terms of FIHOA between the two groups. Additionally, adverse reactions were reported by two patients in the placebo group, whereas no such reports were documented in the CFA group. Topical CFAs demonstrate efficacy in alleviating pain and enhancing patient global satisfaction in the treatment of hand osteoarthritis. However, a more extended follow-up period is imperative to ascertain whether disparities exist in the safety profile and functional outcomes between topical CFAs and a placebo.
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.