MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531261174 · doi:10.1186/s13075-016-1124-9

Efficacy of glucosamine plus diacerein versus monotherapy of glucosamine: a double-blind, parallel randomized clinical trial

2016· article· en· W2531261174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jatupon Kongtharvonskul, Patarawan Woratanarat, Mark McEvoy, John Attia, Siwadol Wongsak, Viroj Kawinwonggowit, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Research & Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMahidol UniversityHunter Medical Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scalePlaceboRandomized controlled trialDouble blindPlacebo-controlled studyInternal medicineAnesthesiaPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and diacerein monotherapy have been recommended for treatment of mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence of efficacy for combined treatments is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes (i.e., pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] score) at 6 months as well as the safety profile of treatment with combined pCGS and diacerein versus pCGS alone. METHODS: A double-blind, parallel randomized controlled superiority trial was conducted between August 2013 and August 2014 at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. A total of 148 patients (74 patients in each group) was randomly allocated to receive pCGS plus diacerein or pCGS plus placebo daily. Adult patients with OA were eligible if they had a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3. The primary outcomes were visual analogue scale score (VAS) for pain and WOMAC subscores measured at 24 weeks after receiving treatment, using the intention-to-treat principle (nonresponder imputation). RESULTS: , respectively. Mean VAS and minimal joint space width at baseline were 5.1 and 2.5 mm, respectively. The mean VAS values measured at 24 weeks were 2.97 and 2.88 in the pCGS plus diacerein and pCGS plus placebo groups, respectively. The estimated mean difference was 0.09 (95 % CI -0.75 to 0.94), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.710). In addition, the mean WOMAC total, pain, function, and stiffness scores for both groups were not significantly different, with corresponding means of 48.59, 12.02, 32.74, and 3.85 for the pCGS plus diacerein group and 48.69, 11.76, 32.47, and 4.16 for the pCGS plus placebo group. The risk of diarrhea and dyspepsia was very similar between the two groups, with risk ratios of 1.03 (95 % CI 0.56-1.89) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.43-1.92), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate that coadministration of diacerein with pCGS improves pain and WOMAC score compared with pCGS monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate OA of the knee. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01906801 . Registered on 20 July 2013.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Research & TherapySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207