English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

On the basis of metaanalysis of randomized studies assessing the symptoms and radiological progression of patients with osteoarthritis (OA), investigators have concluded that health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of glucosamine and chondroitin, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged. This conclusion has the potential to change current management of OA mainly in Europe, where these compounds are prescribed drugs. But should metaanalysis be considered the ultimate level of evidence and sole support for these conclusions? This editorial addresses this question.

Interpretation of Metaanalyses: Pitfalls Should Be More Widely Recognized