Trial reportRheumatology international1993
Worldwide experience with etodolac (Lodine) 300 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of osteoarthritis.
Trial report in Rheumatology international, 1993. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Newer Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Patients of Osteoarthritis of Knee Joint: A Randomized, Prospective, Open-label Parallel-group Study.Indian journal of pharmacologyTrial
- Differences in NSAID tolerability profiles. Fact or fiction?Drug safety · 1994Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Worldwide experience with the conventional formulation of etodolac (300 mg b.i.d.) was reviewed in 12 randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. The studies were conducted in 13 countries at 59 sites, and 1289 patients were enrolled. The results of 9 comparative and 3 placebo-controlled clinical studies were examined to compare the efficacy and safety of etodolac versus piroxicam, naproxen, indomethacin, indomethacin sustained-release (SR), and diclofenac SR. Efficacy assessments were made at pretreatment screening, baseline, and every 2 weeks thereafter during treatment until study completion up to 4, 6, or 8 weeks. The primary efficacy assessments were the patient's and physician's global evaluations, pain intensity and night pain, or joint tenderness and walking pain. Safety was assessed with reference to study events, reports of laboratory results, and vital signs measurements. Patients in all active treatment groups showed prompt response to therapy. According to the physicians' global evaluation, at least 64% of all etodolac-treated patients and 62% of all active-reference preparation-treated patients had improved by the end of the study. Similar results were seen in the patients' global evaluation. All of the study drugs were well tolerated. Eight (8%) percent of the etodolac-treated patients withdrew because of study events. The proportions of patients treated with active reference preparations and placebos who withdrew because of study events ranged from 3% to 18%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.