Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42112176›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2012

Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to glucosamine and maintenance of normal joint cartilage pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following an application from Merck Consumer Healthcare, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Belgium, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to glucosamine, formulated as glucosamine sulphate or hydrochloride, and maintenance of normal joint cartilage. Glucosamine is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect is "contributes to the maintenance of normal joint cartilage". The target population as proposed by the applicant is the general population, and in particular people exposing their joints to high mechanical load and people with joint cartilage deterioration due to normal ageing. The Panel considers that the maintenance of normal joint cartilage is a beneficial physiological effect. The applicant provided references to studies in patients with osteoarthritis, in healthy subjects, in animals and in vitro as being pertinent to the health claim. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that no human studies were provided from which conclusions could be drawn on the effect of dietary glucosamine on the maintenance of cartilage in individuals without osteoarthritis, and that the evidence provided in the in vitro and animal studies in support of the biological plausibility for a possible contribution of dietary glucosamine to the maintenance of joint cartilage in humans is weak. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of glucosamine and maintenance of normal joint cartilage in individuals without osteoarthritis.

Indexed as

cartilageGlucosaminehealth claimsjoints

Identifiers

PMID42112176
PMCPMC13151818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.