Authors' recommendations: Although the results of analysis of the clinical effect of glucosamine in osteoarthritis through the existing reports and additional literature were found to be effective in pain reduction and improvement of joint function in comparison to those of the placebo, there was no consistency in the results. In the subgroup analysis, the researches that were not funded by the manufacturers of glucosamine did not effect ineffective (Ed note: unclear; please clarify and confirm; 'did not have an effect on pain reduction and improvement in function') in pain reduction and improvement of function. In addition, glucosamine has no pain reduction effect and statistically a very minor effect in the improvement of joint function (SMD -0.10(95% CI -0.18, -0.01) I2=0%) in the researches in which the allocation concealment was appropriate, in which the researcher had no clues as to which treatment group the subjects of the research belonged to at the beginning of the research. Since the effect size was less than 0.5, it made it difficult to deem the results as being effective, with clinical significance. In particular, in the case of glucosamine sulfate, which has been approved as medical drug and for which payment of health insurance is acknowledged in Korea, the results of review of the clinical effect found no added literature other than the existing reports. Accordingly, citation of the results of the existing reports without alteration is as follows. Glucosamine sulfate, when compared with the placebo, had no consistent difference in the effectiveness on pain reduction and improvement of joint function in the researches that were not funded by the manufacturers and in researches for which allocation concealment was carried out appropriately. Since this study report was reviewed rapidly within a short period of time, through the RAPID program of the National Evidence-based Health Care Collaborating Agency, it may be somewhat inadequate in terms of its strictness. Accordingly, the risk of being skewed as the result cannot be ruled out. If needed in the future, this aspect could be supplemented by a completely systematic review or systematic review that utilizes the existing systematic review.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2011

URL for published report: http://www.neca.re.kr/center/researcher/report_view.jsp?boardNo=GA&seq=36&q=63706167653d3326626f6172644e6f3d4741

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: South Korea

Organisation Name: National Evidence-based healthcare Collaborating Agency

Contact Address: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), 3~5F Health and Welfare Social Administration B/D, 400 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Korea.

Contact Name: int@neca.re.kr

Contact Email: int@neca.re.kr

Copyright: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA)