MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The efficacy and tolerability of glucosamine sulfate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

2009· article· en· W2158395079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. Giordano, Antonella Fioravanti, Panagiotis Papakostas, Antonio Montella, Giorgio Giorgi, Ranuccio Nuti

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Therapeutic Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityPlaceboWOMACOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleKnee painPhysical therapyInternal medicineAnesthesiaAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is often associated with disability and impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of glucosamine sulfate (GS) in the treatment of knee OA. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients affected by primary monolateral or bilateral knee OA were enrolled in this double-blind, double-dummy, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. One group received GS 1500 mg QD for 12 weeks, and the other group received placebo QD for 12 weeks. The treatment period was followed by a 12-week treatment-free observation phase. Each patient was examined at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. The primary efficacy criteria were pain at rest and during movement, assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 to 100 mm. The secondary criteria included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index for total pain score (W-TPS), total stiffness score (W-TSS), and total physical function score (W-TPFS). VAS, W-TPS, W-TSS, and W-TPFS were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Analgesic drug consumption (ie, acetaminophen or NSAIDs) was also assessed. RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the GS and placebo groups. Of 60 randomized patients (30 per group), 56 completed the study (28 treated with GS and 28 who received placebo). Statistically significant improvements in symptomatic knee OA were observed, as measured by differences in resting pain at weeks 8, 12, and 16 (all, P < 0.05 vs placebo) and in pain during movement at weeks 12 and 16 (both, P < 0.05). W-TPS was lower with GS than placebo at weeks 8, 12, and 16 (all, P < 0.01), and at week 20 (P < 0.05). W-TSS was also lower with GS than placebo at weeks 8, 12, 16, and 20 (all, P < 0.05). W-TPFS was lower with GS than placebo at weeks 8 (P < 0.05), 12 (P < 0.01), 16 (P < 0.05), and 20 (P < 0.05). Drug consumption was lower in the GS group than the placebo group at weeks 8, 12, 16, and 20 (all, P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was 36.7% with GS and 40.0% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: GS 1500 mg QD PO for 12 weeks was associated with statistically significant reductions in pain and improvements in functioning, with decreased analgesic consumption, compared with baseline and placebo in these patients with knee OA. A carryover effect was detected after treatment ended.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Therapeutic ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207