↓ Skip to main content

Effects of hyaluronic acid combined with anti-inflammatory drugs compared with hyaluronic acid alone, in clinical trials and experiments in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Effects of hyaluronic acid combined with anti-inflammatory drugs compared with hyaluronic acid alone, in clinical trials and experiments in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1743-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thippaporn Euppayo, Veerasak Punyapornwithaya, Siriwadee Chomdej, Siriwan Ongchai, Korakot Nganvongpanit

Abstract

The objectives are to compare the efficacy of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) alone and in combination with anti-inflammatory drugs (IA-HA + AI), corticosteroids (CS) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in clinical trials and in vivo and in vitro studies of osteoarthritis (OA). Data in the BIOSIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Medline databases were collected and analyzed. Random effects models were used to compute the effect size (ES) of the mean difference in pain reduction scores from baseline and the relative risk (RR) of adverse events. The ES of histological scores in vivo and cartilage metabolism in vitro were also calculated. We conducted sensitivity analysis of blinding and intention-to-treat (ITT), compared IA-HA combined with CS vs. IA-HA alone in trials, and compared the effects of HA + AI vs. AI alone in vitro, including anabolic and catabolic gene expression. Thirteen out of 382 papers were included for data analysis. In clinical trials, the ES of pain reduction scores within the 1st month was -4.24 (-6.19, -2.29); 2nd-12th month, -1.39 (-1.95, -0.82); and within one year, -1.63 (-2.19, -1.08), favoring IA-HA + AI (P < 0.001). The ES of RR was 1.08 (0.59, 1.98), and histological scores was 1.38 (-0.55, 3.31). The ES of anabolic gene expression was 1.22 (0.18, 2.25), favoring HA alone (P < 0.05); catabolic gene expression was 0.74 (-0.44, 1.53), favoring HA alone; and glycosaminoglycans remaining was -2.45 (-5.94, 1.03). IA-HA + AI had greater efficacy for pain relief than IA-HA alone within a one-year period. However, HA + AI down-regulated the ACAN gene when compared with HA alone in vitro.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 44 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Engineering 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 47 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,708,595
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#521
of 4,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,493
of 321,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#8
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 321,812 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.