Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8210924›Full record

Trial reportRheumatology international1993

Worldwide experience with etodolac (Lodine) 300 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

P Bacon

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

P BaconUniversity of Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDelayed-Action PreparationsDiclofenacDouble-Blind MethodEtodolacGlobal HealthHip JointHumansIndomethacinKnee JointMiddle AgedNaproxenOsteoarthritisDelayed-Action PreparationsDiclofenacEtodolacIndomethacinNaproxenPiroxicam

Identifiers

PMID8210924
OpenAlexW1965370295

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.