↓ Skip to main content

Chondroitin sulfate efficacy versus celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis structural changes using magnetic resonance imaging: a 2-year multicentre exploratory study

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chondroitin sulfate efficacy versus celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis structural changes using magnetic resonance imaging: a 2-year multicentre exploratory study
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13075-016-1149-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Pierre Pelletier, Jean-Pierre Raynauld, André D. Beaulieu, Louis Bessette, Frédéric Morin, Artur J. de Brum-Fernandes, Philippe Delorme, Marc Dorais, Patrice Paiement, François Abram, Johanne Martel-Pelletier

Abstract

In osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, although chondroitin sulfate (CS) was found in a number of studies using radiography to have a structure-modifying effect, to date CS use is still under debate. A clinical study using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) is therefore of the utmost importance. Here we report data from a 24-month, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, comparative exploratory study of knee OA. The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of CS 1200 mg/day versus celecoxib 200 mg/day on cartilage volume loss (CVL) in the lateral compartment over time as measured by qMRI. Secondary endpoints included assessment of the OA structural changes and signs and symptoms of OA. qMRI was performed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. CVL, bone marrow lesion size, and synovial thickness were evaluated using qMRI. The primary statistical analysis was carried out on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 138) using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney, and Student's t tests and analysis of covariance. Analyses were also conducted on the according-to-protocol (ATP; n = 120) population. In the adjusted mITT analysis, compared with celecoxib treatment, patients treated with CS had a significant reduced CVL at 24 months in the medial compartment (celecoxib -8.1 % ± 4.2, CS -6.3 % ± 3.2; p = 0.018) and medial condyle (-7.7 % ± 4.7, -5.5 % ± 3.9; p = 0.008); no significant effect was seen in the lateral compartment. In the ATP population, CS reduced CVL in the medial compartment at 12 months (celecoxib -5.6 % ± 3.0, CS -4.5 % ± 2.6; p = 0.049) and 24 months (celecoxib -8.4 % ± 4.2, CS -6.6 % ± 3.3; p = 0.021), and in the medial condyle at 24 months (celocoxib -8.1 % ± 4.7, CS -5.7 % ± 4.0; p = 0.010). A trend towards a statistically reduced synovial thickness (celecoxib +17.96 ± 33.73 mm, CS -0.66 ± 22.72 mm; p = 0.076) in the medial suprapatellar bursa was observed in CS patients. Both groups experienced a marked reduction in the incidence of patients with joint swelling/effusion and in symptoms over time. Data showed similar good safety profiles including cardiovascular adverse events for both drugs. This study demonstrated, for the first time in a 2-year randomised controlled trial using qMRI, the superiority of CS over celecoxib at reducing CVL in knee OA patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01354145 . Registered 13 May 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Psychology 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 25 April 2020.
All research outputs
#771,386
of 15,508,924 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#94
of 2,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,961
of 293,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#10
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,508,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. 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 293,766 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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 95% of its contemporaries.