↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Glucosamine-containing supplement improves locomotor functions in subjects with knee pain a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
Glucosamine-containing supplement improves locomotor functions in subjects with knee pain a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s93077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noriyuki Kanzaki, Yoshiko Ono, Hiroshi Shibata, Toshio Moritani

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of a glucosamine-containing supplement to improve locomotor functions in subjects with knee pain. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparative study was conducted for 16 weeks in 100 Japanese subjects (age, 51.8±0.8 years) with knee pain. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two supplements containing 1) 1,200 mg of glucosamine hydrochloride, 60 mg of chondroitin sulfate, 45 mg of type II collagen peptides, 90 mg of quercetin glycosides, 10 mg of imidazole peptides, and 5 μg of vitamin D per day (GCQID group, n=50) or 2) a placebo (placebo group, n=50). Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure, visual analog scale score, normal walking speed, and knee-extensor strength were measured to evaluate the effects of the supplement on knee-joint functions and locomotor functions. In subjects eligible for efficacy assessment, there was no significant group × time interaction, and there were improvements in knee-joint functions and locomotor functions in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups. In subjects with mild-to-severe knee pain at baseline, knee-extensor strength at week 8 (104.6±5.0% body weight vs 92.3±5.5% body weight, P=0.030) and the change in normal walking speed at week 16 (0.11±0.03 m/s vs 0.05±0.02 m/s, P=0.038) were significantly greater in the GCQID group than in the placebo group. Further subgroup analysis based on Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade showed that normal walking speed at week 16 (1.36±0.05 m/s vs 1.21±0.02 m/s, P<0.05) was significantly greater in the GCQID group than in the placebo group in subjects with K-L grade I. No adverse effect of treatment was identified in the safety assessment. In subjects with knee pain, GCQID supplementation was effective for relieving knee pain and improving locomotor functions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 5%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 47 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 9%
Sports and Recreations 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 52 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#818
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,400
of 286,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#23
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 286,873 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.