↓ Skip to main content

Is there any scientific evidence for the use of glucosamine in the management of human osteoarthritis?

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 2,327)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Is there any scientific evidence for the use of glucosamine in the management of human osteoarthritis?
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/ar3657
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yves Henrotin, Ali Mobasheri, Marc Marty

Abstract

Glucosamine in its acetylated form is a natural constituent of some glycosaminoglycans (for example, hyaluronic acid and keratan sulfate) in the proteoglycans found in articular cartilage, intervertebral disc and synovial fluid. Glucosamine can be extracted and stabilized by chemical modification and used as a drug or a nutraceutical. It has been approved for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) in Europe to promote cartilage and joint health and is sold over the counter as a dietary supplement in the United States. Various formulations of glucosamine have been tested, including glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride. In vitro and in vivo studies have uncovered glucosamine's mechanisms of action on articular tissues (cartilage, synovial membrane and subchondral bone) and justified its efficacy by demonstrating structure-modifying and anti-inflammatory effects at high concentrations. However, results from clinical trials have raised many concerns. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that glucosamine is easily absorbed, but the current treatment doses (for example, 1,500 mg/day) barely reach the required therapeutic concentration in plasma and tissue. The symptomatic effect size of glucosamine varies greatly depending on the formulation used and the quality of clinical trials. Importantly, the effect size reduces when evidence is accumulated chronologically and evidence for the structure-modifying effects of glucosamine are sparse. Hence, glucosamine was at first recommended by EULAR and OARSI for the management of knee pain and structure improvement in OA patients, but not in the most recent NICE guidelines. Consequently, the published recommendations for the management of OA require revision. Glucosamine is generally safe and although there are concerns about potential allergic and salt-related side effects of some formulations, no major adverse events have been reported so far. This paper examines all the in vitro and in vivo evidence for the mechanism of action of glucosamine as well as reviews the results of clinical trials. The pharmacokinetics, side effects and differences observed with different formulations of glucosamine and combination therapies are also considered. Finally, the importance of study design and criteria of evaluation are highlighted as new compounds represent new interesting options for the management of OA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 157 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 18%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 12 7%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Chemistry 7 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 25 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#403,286
of 14,547,452 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#29
of 2,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,721
of 211,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#3
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,547,452 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 211,489 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 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 98% of its contemporaries.