Dataset Information

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Glucosamine sulphate (GS) can be used as background therapy in people affected by knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of GS is of importance since its use worldwide is increasing. Therefore, the present study aimed to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with GS using an umbrella review approach.

Methods

Medline, Cinahl and Embase databases were searched until 1 April 2020. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. The evidence from the RCTs was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.

Results

From 140 articles returned, 11 systematic reviews, for a total of 21 outcomes (37 RCTs; 3949 participants; almost all using 1500?mg/day), were included. No systematic reviews/meta-analyses of observational studies were included. Regarding the findings of the meta-analyses, 9/17 outcomes were statistically significant, indicating that GS is more effective than placebo. A high certainty of evidence, as assessed by GRADE, supported the use of GS (versus placebo) in improving the Lequesne Index, joint space width change, joint space width change after 3?years of follow up, joint space narrowing and OA progression. No difference in terms of adverse effects was found between GS and placebo. In systematic reviews, GS was associated with a better glucose profile and a better physical function performance than placebo.

Conclusion

GS, when used as a prescription drug (i.e. crystalline glucosamine sulphate) at 1500?mg daily dosage, can positively affect the cartilage structure, reduce pain, improve function and glucose metabolism in people with knee OA, without having a greater incidence of adverse effects than placebo.

SUBMITTER: Veronese N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7768322 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes.

Veronese Nicola N Demurtas Jacopo J Smith Lee L Reginster Jean-Yves JY Bruyère Olivier O Beaudart Charlotte C Honvo Germain G Maggi Stefania S

Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease 20201226

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Glucosamine sulphate (GS) can be used as background therapy in people affected by knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of GS is of importance since its use worldwide is increasing. Therefore, the present study aimed to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with GS using an umbrella review approach.<h4>Methods</h4>Medline, Cinahl and Embase databases were searched until 1 April 2020. An umbrella review of systematic revie ...[more]

PMID: 33488785

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo evaluate the breadth, depth and effectiveness of the evidence quality of all existing studies on bariatric surgery and mental health outcomes.DesignUmbrella review of existing Systematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Liberally databases of Systematic review and meta-analyses, and hand searching the reference lists of eligible publications.ResultsThe search identified nine studies and 20 mental health outcomes from 1251 studies. Evidence shows that bariatric surgery is associated with significant improvement in areas such as anxiety, depression and eating disorders (including binge-eating disorder), and there is a significant harmful association with suicide, self-harm and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Among them, the most studied outcome is depression (4 articles). High-quality evidence proves that the score of depressive symptoms can be significantly improved after bariatric surgery within a two-year follow-up period and is not affected by the follow-up time. Low-quality evidence shows that bariatric surgery can significantly reduce depressive symptoms regardless of age and BMI, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.49. Regardless of the postoperative BMI, the anxiety symptoms of women over 40 still decreased significantly, with an OR of 0.58. Regardless of the type of surgery, surgery can significantly reduce the incidence of eating disorders and symptoms. However, there is no obvious change in the follow-up time of AUD in the first two years after bariatric surgery, and the risk increases obviously in the third year, with an OR of 1.825. The evidence of moderate research shows that the risk of suicide and self-harm increases after bariatric surgery. The odds ratios in the same population and the control group were 1.9 and 3.8 times, respectively.ConclusionBariatric surgery is beneficial for improving most mental health-related outcomes. However, we should be cautious about the increased risk of adverse mental health after surgery, such as suicide, self-harm, and AUD.

Project description:Objectives To evaluate the existing evidence for associations between coffee consumption and multiple health outcomes.Design Umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies of coffee consumption and any health outcome.Data sources PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and screening of references.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Meta-analyses of both observational and interventional studies that examined the associations between coffee consumption and any health outcome in any adult population in all countries and all settings. Studies of genetic polymorphisms for coffee metabolism were excluded.Results The umbrella review identified 201 meta-analyses of observational research with 67 unique health outcomes and 17 meta-analyses of interventional research with nine unique outcomes. Coffee consumption was more often associated with benefit than harm for a range of health outcomes across exposures including high versus low, any versus none, and one extra cup a day. There was evidence of a non-linear association between consumption and some outcomes, with summary estimates indicating largest relative risk reduction at intakes of three to four cups a day versus none, including all cause mortality (relative risk 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.88), cardiovascular mortality (0.81, 0.72 to 0.90), and cardiovascular disease (0.85, 0.80 to 0.90). High versus low consumption was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident cancer (0.82, 0.74 to 0.89). Consumption was also associated with a lower risk of several specific cancers and neurological, metabolic, and liver conditions. Harmful associations were largely nullified by adequate adjustment for smoking, except in pregnancy, where high versus low/no consumption was associated with low birth weight (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.67), preterm birth in the first (1.22, 1.00 to 1.49) and second (1.12, 1.02 to 1.22) trimester, and pregnancy loss (1.46, 1.06 to 1.99). There was also an association between coffee drinking and risk of fracture in women but not in men.Conclusion Coffee consumption seems generally safe within usual levels of intake, with summary estimates indicating largest risk reduction for various health outcomes at three to four cups a day, and more likely to benefit health than harm. Robust randomised controlled trials are needed to understand whether the observed associations are causal. Importantly, outside of pregnancy, existing evidence suggests that coffee could be tested as an intervention without significant risk of causing harm. Women at increased risk of fracture should possibly be excluded.

Project description:ImportanceAntidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these findings has not been quantified.ObjectiveTo grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed the association between antidepressant use or exposure and adverse health outcomes.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to April 5, 2019.Evidence reviewOnly meta-analyses of observational studies with a cohort or case-control study design were eligible. Two independent reviewers recorded the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Evidence of association was ranked according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant.ResultsForty-five meta-analyses (17.9%) from 4471 studies identified and 252 full-text articles scrutinized were selected that described 120 associations, including data from 1012 individual effect size estimates. Seventy-four (61.7%) of the 120 associations were nominally statistically significant at P ≤ .05 using random-effects models. Fifty-two associations (43.4%) had large heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 17 associations (14.2%) and excess significance bias was found for 9 associations (7.5%). Convincing evidence emerged from both main and sensitivity analyses for the association between antidepressant use and risk of suicide attempt or completion among children and adolescents, autism spectrum disorders with antidepressant exposure before and during pregnancy, preterm birth, and low Apgar scores. None of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analysis, which adjusted for confounding by indication.Conclusions and relevanceThis study's findings suggest that most putative adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressant use may not be supported by convincing evidence, and confounding by indication may alter the few associations with convincing evidence. Antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, but more studies matching for underlying disease are needed to clarify the degree of confounding by indication and other biases. No absolute contraindication to antidepressants emerged from this umbrella review.

Project description:Background: There is no study that has systematically investigated the breadth and validity of the associations of folate and multiple health outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the quantity, validity, and credibility of evidence regarding associations between folate and multiple health outcomes by using umbrella review of meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 20, 2018, to identify potential meta-analyses that examined the association of folate with any health outcome. For each included meta-analysis, we estimated the summary effect size and their 95% confidence interval using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. We used the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) to assess methodological quality and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group classification) to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome included in the umbrella review. Results: Overall, 108 articles reporting 133 meta-analyses of observational studies and 154 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the study. Among them, 108 unique exposure-outcome-population triplets (referred to as unique meta-analyses hereafter) of RCTs and 87 unique meta-analyses of observational studies were reanalyzed. Beneficial effects of folate were observed in the all-cause mortality rate and in a number of chronic diseases, including several birth/pregnancy outcomes, several cancers, cardiovascular disease and metabolic-related outcomes, neurological conditions, and several other diseases. However, adverse effects of folate were observed for prostate cancer, colorectal adenomatous lesions, asthma or wheezing, and wheezing as an isolated symptom and depression. Conclusions: Current evidence allows for the conclusion that folate is associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and a wide range of chronic diseases. However, folate may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Further research is warranted to improve the certainty of the estimates.

Dataset Information

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes.

Background and aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets