Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Original Article

Meta-Analysis of the Related Nutritional Supplements Dimethyl Sulfoxide and Methylsulfonylmethane in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Table 4

Quality Assessment of RCT of MSM and DMSO randomized clinical trials.
Study, year (reference)Baseline characteristics presented?Concealement of allocationReported to be double blindAdequate blinding of patientsAdequate blinding of researchersConsort Diagram reportedWithdrawal rate in the intervention groupWithdrawal rate in the control groupPower Calculation/ Statistical analysisIntention to Treat analysis performedMethod to handle missing dataJADAD Score
Bookman et al., 2004 [36]YesNo significant group difference for demographics, baseline knee pain, radiographic status or complianceYesNo, but clear from methodology this was a double blind studyYesYesYes18% ( /80)18% ( /84) per group plus 10 for drop outs, to detect a difference of 3, 4, or 5 units in WOMAC pain 80% power and = 0.05 ITT analysis. Primary outcomes: analysis of covarianceYesLOCF Except for missing baseline data which were replaced with day 1 scoresScore = 5 Blinding = 2 Randomization = 2 Withdrawal = 1
Eberhardt et al., 1995 [56]Yes No significant group differences at baseline for symptom duration, age, height, weight, length of activation of current symptomsNo details reportedYesYesNo details reportedNo5% ( /56)2% ( /56)No ITT Primary outcome: ANOVA, other outcomes: contingency board method and t-testYesLOCFScore = 4 Blinding = 2 Randomization = 1 Withdrawal = 1
Kim et al., 2006 [43]Yes No significant group differences at baseline for sex, age, height, wgt, and symptom duration, NSAID use, MSM or DMSO use, ACR classification, baseline VAS scores, PGA or PhGA scores, and radiological stageYesYesYesYesYes16%   /25)24%   /25)Yes ITT analysis Group differences in baseline to week 12 by T testYesNot reportedScore = 5 Blinding = 2 Randomization = 2 Withdrawal = 1
LOCF, last observation carried forward.