↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of glucosamine, diacerein, and NSAIDs in osteoarthritis knee: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Medical Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 923)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of glucosamine, diacerein, and NSAIDs in osteoarthritis knee: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40001-015-0115-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jatupon Kongtharvonskul, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, Mark McEvoy, John Attia, Patarawan Woratanarat, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Abstract

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the aims of comparing relevant clinical outcomes (that is, visual analog scores (VAS), total and sub-Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores, Lequesne algofunctional index, joint space width change, and adverse events) between diacerein, glucosamine, and placebo. Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 29 August 2014, using PubMed and Scopus search engines and included RCTs or quasi-experimental designs comparing clinical outcomes between treatments. Data were extracted from original studies. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes. Thirty-one of 505 identified studies were eligible. Compared to placebo, glucosamine showed a significant improvement with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in total WOMAC, pain WOMAC, function WOMAC, and Lequesne score of -2.49 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.14, -0.83), -0.75 (95% CI: -1.18, -0.32), -4.78 (95% CI: -5.96, -3.59), and -1.03 (95% CI: -1.34, -0.72), respectively. Diacerein clinically improves visual analog scores, function WOMAC, and stiffness WOMAC with UMD values of -2.23 (95% CI: -2.82, -1.64), -6.64 (95% CI: -10.50, -2.78), and -0.68 (95% CI: -1.20, -0.16) when compared to placebo. The network meta-analysis suggests that diacerein and glucosamine are equally efficacious for symptom relief in knee OA, but that the former has more side effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 151 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 19%
Student > Master 20 13%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 40 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 46 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,017,784
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Medical Research
#50
of 923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,347
of 276,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Medical Research
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 276,641 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 91% of its contemporaries.