Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in osteoarthritis (OA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Current Contents up to November 1999, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo based and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double-blinded studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1995) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using Peto Odds Ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Collectively, the 16 identified RCTs provided evidence that glucosamine is both effective and safe in OA. In the 13 RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior in all RCTs, except one. In the four RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to confirm the long term effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine therapy in OA. Most of the trials reviewed only evaluated the Rotta preparation of glucosamine sulfate. It is not known whether different glucosamine preparations prepared by different manufacturers are equally effective in the therapy of OA.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".