↓ Skip to main content

Randomized, double-blind, four-arm pilot study on the effects of chicken essence and type II collagen hydrolysate on joint, bone, and muscle functions

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, March 2023
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Randomized, double-blind, four-arm pilot study on the effects of chicken essence and type II collagen hydrolysate on joint, bone, and muscle functions
Published in
Nutrition Journal, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12937-023-00837-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-Chieh Chen, Shih-Sheng Chang, Chih-Hsiang Chang, Chih-Chien Hu, Yoshihiro Nakao, Shan May Yong, Yen Ling Ow Mandy, Chia Juan Lim, Eric Kian-Shiun Shim, Hsin-Nung Shih

Abstract

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability among older adults. Medical and surgical treatments are costly and associated with side effects. A natural nutraceutical, collagen hydrolysate, has received considerable attention due to its relieving effects on OA-associated symptoms. This study investigated the effects of hydrolyzed collagen type II (HC-II) and essence of chicken (BRAND'S Essence of Chicken) with added HC-II (EC-HC-II) on joint, muscle, and bone functions among older adults with OA. Patients (n = 160) with grade 1-3 knee OA according to the Kellgren-Lawrence classification system, joint pain for ≥ 3 months, and a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score of > 6 were randomly assigned with equal probability to consume EC-HC-II, HC-II, glucosamine HCl, or a placebo for 24 weeks in combination with resistance training. Outcome measurements were WOMAC score, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, grip strength, fat-free mass (FFM), and bone mass. All groups exhibited similar levels of improvement in WOMAC index scores after 24 weeks. HC-II significantly reduced VAS pain score by 0.9 ± 1.89 (p = 0.034) after 14 days. A repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that HC-II reduced pain levels more than the placebo did (mean ± standard error: - 1.3 ± 0.45, p = 0.021) after 14 days; the EC-HC-II group also had significantly higher FFM than the glucosamine HCl (p = 0.02) and placebo (p = 0.017) groups and significantly higher grip strength than the glucosamine HCl group (p = 0.002) at 24 weeks. HC-II reduces pain, and EC-HC-II may improve FFM and muscle strength. This suggests that EC-HC-II may be a novel holistic solution for mobility by improving joint, muscle, and bone health among older adults. Large-scale studies should be conducted to validate these findings. This trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04483024).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 19 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 20 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,113,318
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#644
of 1,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,555
of 427,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 427,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.