Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author De Silva, P. V.
dc.contributor.author El-Metwally, Ashraf
dc.contributor.author Ernst, Edzard
dc.contributor.author Lewith, George
dc.contributor.author Macfarlane, Gary J.
dc.date.accessioned 2023-09-12T09:25:55Z
dc.date.available 2023-09-12T09:25:55Z
dc.date.issued 2010-12-17
dc.identifier.citation Vijitha De Silva, Ashraf El-Metwally, Edzard Ernst, George Lewith, Gary J. Macfarlane, on behalf of the Arthritis Research UK working group on complementary and alternative medicines, Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review, Rheumatology, Volume 50, Issue 5, May 2011, Pages 911–920, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keq379 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://ir.lib.ruh.ac.lk/xmlui/handle/iruor/14601
dc.description.abstract Objectives. To critically evaluate the evidence regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) taken orally or applied topically (excluding glucosamine and chondroitin) in the treatment of OA. Methods. Randomized clinical trials of OA using CAMs, in comparison with other treatments or placebo, published in English up to January 2009, were eligible for inclusion. They were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and manual searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes, and statistical significance, in comparison with alternative treatment of placebo, and side effects were reported. The methodological quality of the primary studies was determined. Results. The present review found consistent evidence that capsaicin gel and S-adenosyl methionine were effective in the management of OA. There was also some consistency to the evidence that Indian Frankincense, methylsulphonylmethane and rose hip may be effective. For other substances with promising evidence, the evidence base was either insufficiently large or the evidence base was inconsistent. Most of the CAM compounds studied were free of major adverse effects. Conclusion. The major limitation in reviewing the evidence is the paucity of randomized controlled trials in the area: widening the evidence base, particularly for those compounds for which there is promising evidence, should be a priority for both researchers and funders. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher British Society for Rheumatology en_US
dc.subject Complementary medicine en_US
dc.subject Systematic review en_US
dc.subject Osteoarthritis en_US
dc.subject Efficacy en_US
dc.subject Safety en_US
dc.subject Randomized controlled trials en_US
dc.title Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account