↓ Skip to main content

Ayurvedic interventions for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Rheumatology International, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Ayurvedic interventions for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Rheumatology International, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00296-014-3095-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian S. Kessler, Lea Pinders, Andreas Michalsen, Holger Cramer

Abstract

Ayurveda is one of the fastest growing systems within complementary and alternative medicine. However, the evidence for its effectiveness is unsatisfactory. The aim of this work was to review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of different Ayurvedic interventions in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). 138 electronic databases were searched through August 2013. Randomized controlled trials, randomized crossover studies, cluster-randomized trials, and non-randomized controlled clinical trials were eligible. Adults with pre-diagnosed OA were included as participants. Interventions were included as Ayurvedic if they were explicitly labeled as such. Main outcome measures were pain, physical function, and global improvement. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 19 randomized and 14 non-randomized controlled trials on 12 different drugs and 3 non-pharmaceutical interventions with a total of 2,952 patients were included. For the compound preparation, Rumalaya, large and apparently unbiased effects beyond placebo were found for pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -3.73; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -4.97, -2.50; P < 0.01) and global improvement (risk ratio 12.20; 95 % CI 5.83, 25.54; P < 0.01). There is also some evidence that effects of the herbal compound preparation Shunti-Guduchi are comparable to those of glucosamine for pain (SMD 0.08; 95 % CI -0.20, 0.36; P = 0.56) and function (SMD 0.15; 95 % CI -0.12, 0.36; P = 0.41). Based on single trials, positive effects were found for the compound preparations RA-11, Reosto, and Siriraj Wattana. For Boswellia serrata, Lepidium Sativum, a Boswellia serrata containing multicomponent formulation and the compounds Nirgundi Taila, Panchatikta Ghrita Guggulu, and Rhumayog, and for non-pharmacological interventions like Ayurvedic massage, steam therapy, and enema, no evidence for significant effects against potential methodological bias was found. No severe adverse events were observed in all trials. The drugs Rumalaya and Shunti-Guduchi seem to be safe and effective drugs for treatment of OA-patients, based on these data. However, several limitations relate to clinical research on Ayurveda. Well-planned, well-conducted and well-published trials are warranted to improve the evidence for Ayurvedic interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 31 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,532,668
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#83
of 2,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,862
of 232,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#3
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.