Effectiveness and Safety of Glucosamine in Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis is the most popular type of osteoarthritis that causes extreme pain in the elderly. Currently, there is no cure for osteoarthritis. To lessen clinical symptoms, glucosamine was suggested. The primary goal of our systematic review study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine based on recent studies. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane were used to assess the randomized controlled trial (RCT). From the beginning through March 2023, the papers were checked, and if they fulfilled the inclusion criteria, they were then examined. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scales were considered the main outcome measures. A total of 15 studies were selected. Global pain was significantly decreased in comparison to placebo, as measured by the VAS index, with an overall effect size of standardized mean difference (SMD) of -7.41 ([95% CI] 14.31, 0.51). The WOMAC scale confirmed that pain, stiffness, and physical function had improved, however the effects were insufficient. A statistical update also revealed that there were no reports of serious medication interactions or significant adverse events. To summarize, glucosamine is more effective than a placebo at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis patients. In long-term treatment, oral glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg/day is believed to be well tolerated.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".