Nutraceutical supplements in management of pain and disability in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study designed to evaluate the effect of nutraceutical supplementation on pain intensity and physical function in patients with knee/hip OA. The MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science direct, and ProQuest in addition to SID, Magiran, and Iranmedex were searched up to March 2020. Records (n = 465) were screened via the PICOS criteria: participants were patients with hip or knee OA; intervention was different nutritional supplements; comparator was any comparator; the outcome was pain intensity (Visual analogue scale [VAS]) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis [WOMAC] index); study type was randomized controlled trials. The random effects model was used to pool the calculated effect sizes. The standardized mean difference (SMD) of the outcome changes was considered as the effect size. The random effects model was used to combine the effect sizes. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by Cochran's (Q) and I2 statistics. A total of 42 RCTs were involved in the meta-analysis. Nutritional supplementation were found to improve total WOMAC index (SMD = - 0.23, 95% CI - 0.37 to - 0.08), WOMAC pain (SMD = - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.10) and WOMAC stiffness (SMD = - 0.47, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.23) subscales and VAS (SMD = - 0.79, 95% CI - 1.05 to - 0.05). Results of subgroup analysis according to the supplementation duration showed that the pooled effect size in studies with < 10 months, 10-20 months and > 20 months supplementation duration were 0.05, 0.27, and 0.36, respectively for WOMAC total score, 0.14, 0.55 and 0.05, respectively for WOAMC pain subscale, 0.59, 0.47 and 0.41, respectively for WOMAC stiffness subscale, 0.05, 0.57 and 0.53, respectively for WOMAC physical function subscale and 0.65, 0.99 and 0.12, respectively for VAS pain. The result suggested that nutraceutical supplementation of patients with knee/hip OA may lead to an improvement in pain intensity and physical function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".