Effect of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation for patients with osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) confers anti-inflammatory efficacy, which has been suggested to be effective for patients with osteoarthritis (OA). However, previous studies evaluating the influence of n-3 PUFAs supplementation in patients with OA showed inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the influence of n-3 PUFAs on symptom and joint function of patients with OA. Methods Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. A random-effects model was employed to combine the results. Results Nine RCTs with 2070 patients with OA contributed to the meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that n-3 PUFAs supplementation could significantly relieve the arthritis pain as compared to placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD]: − 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.47 to − 0.11, p = 0.002, I 2 = 60%). Besides, supplementation with n-3 PUFAs was also associated with improved joint function (SMD: − 0.21, 95% CI − 0.34 to − 0.07, p = 0.002, I 2 = 27%). Subgroup analysis showed consistent results of studies with arthritis pain and joint function evaluated by the Western Ontario-McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index and other scales ( p for subgroup difference = 0.33 and 0.34, respectively). No severe treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were observed in the included patients, and the incidence of overall AEs was similar between groups (odds ratio: 0.97, 95% CI 0.64–1.45, p = 0.86, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions Supplementation of n-3 PUFAs is effective to relieve pain and improve joint function in patients with 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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".