Trial reportNutrients2026
Using Dose-Response Correlation Re-Analyzing to Distinguish Placebo from Standardized Rose-Hip Powder (Lito) in a Clinical Trial on Osteoarthritis Where Data Initially Looked Identical.
Trial report in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01459939 (A Double-blind, Randomized, Parallel Group, Fase III Comparative Study With Rose Hip Powder Powder and Placebo Given to Patients With Mild to Moderate Osteoarthritis in the Knee or/and Hip), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Double-blind, Randomized, Parallel Group, Fase III Comparative Study With Rose Hip Powder Powder and Placebo Given to Patients With Mild to Moderate Osteoarthritis in the Knee or/and Hip
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundLarge positive responses to placebo are common in clinical trials and pose a major challenge when evaluating different treatments, including new foods. Standard between-group comparisons may fail to detect true effects when placebo improvements are significant. We aimed to demonstrate how a simple dose-response correlation method can help differentiate genuine positive responses from those experienced with placebo through secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial of powdered
methodsData were reanalyzed from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (N = 120; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01459939) evaluating the effects of standardized
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvement, over 50%, with no statistically significant differences between them in WOMAC pain or function. However, only the active group, which received a food supplement, exhibited a consistent negative correlation between body weight and symptom improvement at 6 and 12 weeks, suggesting greater benefit with higher dose per kilogram of body weight. No dose-response relationship was observed in the placebo recipients. Therefore, weight-stratified plots revealed an exposure-response gradient in the active group.
conclusionsDose-response correlation analysis uncovered positive effects of
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.