Abstract
Background:
Well known for its good anti-inflammatory effect, curcuma longa extract (CLE)/curcumin (C) has a potential effect on osteoarthritis (OA), and a large number of researchers have completed several systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in this research area. However, the methodological and evidentiary quality of these SRs/MAs need to be further evaluated, and whether these findings provide reliable evidence for clinicians remains controversial.
Methods:
Two researchers collected data from seven databases for SRs/MAs that are about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CLE/C for OA. Assessment was made for the SRs/MAs included in this article by means of the Assessment System for Evaluating Methodological Quality 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic (ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
Results:
Nine published SRs/MAs were included in our study. According to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment, only one SR/MA was assessed as high quality. According to the ROBIS evaluation results, only 2 SRs/MAs have a low risk of bias. According to the results of the PRISMA checklist assessment, only 2 SRs/MAs studies fully reported the checklist, while other studies had reporting flaws. According to GRADE, a total of 59 effect sizes extracted from the included SRs/MAs were evaluated, among which no effect size was rated as high.
Conclusions:
CLE/C may be an effective and safe complementary treatment for OA. However, further standard SRs/MAs and RCTs are needed to provide an evidence-based medical rationale for this.
Full text
