↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two hyaluronic acid formulations for safety and efficacy (CHASE) study in knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 26-week non-inferiority trial comparing Durolane…

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Comparison of two hyaluronic acid formulations for safety and efficacy (CHASE) study in knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 26-week non-inferiority trial comparing Durolane to Artz
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0557-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heng Zhang, Ke Zhang, Xianlong Zhang, Zhenan Zhu, Shigui Yan, Tiansheng Sun, Ai Guo, John Jones, R Grant Steen, Bin Shan, Jenny Zhang, Jianhao Lin

Abstract

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is often used as therapy for knee osteoarthritis because it is less expensive and less aggressive than total knee replacement. Therefore, it is important to document whether HA is safe and efficacious. We tested whether single and multiple injection viscosupplementation with HA is associated with clinically meaningful pain relief in a new randomized clinical trial (RCT). Our objective was to compare safety and efficacy of intra-articular HA in two formulations: one 3.0 ml injection of Durolane versus five 2.5 ml injections of Artz for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis pain. Patients (N = 349) from the People's Republic of China were randomized to treatment (Durolane = 175, Artz = 174). The Durolane group received a 3.0 ml injection at week 0 (baseline), with sham skin punctures at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Artz group received one 2.5 ml injection at each of the same time points. The primary assessment tool was the Likert-type Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) pain scale at weeks 0, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 26. Secondary assessments were WOMAC physical function, knee stiffness, and global self-assessment, at identical time points. Statistically-controlled analyses were non-inferiority of Durolane over 18, then over 26 weeks, with a priori non-inferiority defined as 8% of the relevant scale. Acetaminophen was permitted as rescue analgesia and all adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Overall study retention was excellent; 332 patients (95.1%) completed 18 weeks and 319 (91.4%) completed 26 weeks, with no significant retention difference between treatment arms. All variables met non-inferiority criteria over 18 and 26 weeks. Efficacy response in both arms was >90%. Treatment-related AEs were 9.8% (17/174) for Artz and 13.1% (23/175) for Durolane. A single injection of Durolane is non-inferior to 5 injections of Artz over 18 and 26 weeks for pain, physical function, global self-assessment, and knee stiffness. Both treatments were efficacious, safe, and well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295580 . Registered 11 February 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Researcher 18 14%
Other 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Engineering 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 41 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,187,498
of 12,451,992 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,288
of 1,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,079
of 218,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#24
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,451,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 218,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.