This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials, Dr McAlindon and colleagues¹ report that both glucosamine sulfate (GS) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) are likely to be effective therapies for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). However, they also assert that the symptomatic benefit may be less than predicted because of methodological flaws and probable publication bias. As representatives of one of the major European manufacturers of highly purified CS, we wish to point out that the clinical development of such agents requires great financial investment. Therefore, without the support of pharmaceutical industries, it would be almost impossible for physicians and researchers to investigate the clinical effect of any active principle. Publication is the last step for a researcher, who is responsible for content and quality of the results. Therefore, we disagree that supported clinical trials are necessarily associated with publication bias.

One of our first clinical studies on . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Glucosamine and Chondroitin for Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Quality Assessment and Meta-analysis
, , , and
JAMA. ;283():1469-1475.
FULL TEXT