Brands and risk of bias lead to inconsistency in trials on glucosamine use for arthritis .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Risk of bias and brand explain the observed inconsistency in trials on glucosamine for symptomatic relief of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Dec;66(12):1844-55.This meta-analysis evaluated 25 randomized control trials which assessed the efficacy of glucosamine for pain due to osteoarthritis (OA), when compared to a placebo group. The study included a total of 3,458 patients who were assessed over short- (at least 4 weeks) or long-term (up to 3 years) periods. The purpose of the study was to determine factors which may account for inconsistencies between trials regarding the efficacy of glucosamine as a treatment for OA. Results indicated that the brand of glucosamine used, and the risk of bias of each study greatly affected variance in outcome results between studies.
Unlock the Full ACE Report
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
