Did I read somewhere that the trials on Cortaflex were flawed?

P

popsicle

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 May 2008
Messages
1,341
Location
LINCOLNSHIRE UK
Visit site
As above really. Did I read somewhere that the findings of their trials were somewhat biased and flawed?
ooo.gif
 
No! I have googled it but can't seem to find it. We buy the huge tubs, but I am really not sure weather to continue. I thought I had read that they were quoting an ingredient rather than actual cortaflex in their marketing.
 
http://www.equine-america.co.uk/docs/cortaflex-2002trial-report.pdf

here is the report

not the best of experiments I would suggest as only 8 participant horses and it sounds like one of those horses had a big impact on the results due to the presence of a bone chip in the fetlock. It was only fed for 2 weeks too. I think this sort of experiment with such a low sample number is pretty flawed initially to produce anything of any actual significance tbh.
 
yes equine americas trial, I found it via there website, if you want a nose PM me your email and I will convert it to a word document for you as I assume you dont have adobe to read it on your computer.

It was done on 8 horses, they were given no supplements for 2 weeks, then given cortaflex for 2 weeks and then 2 weeks off and then a placebo, or vice versa (the sample was mixed) the testing was done double blind so they didnt know what horse had when taking measurements.

It not containing chondrotin/glucosamine makes sense to me tbh, the body produces these so it to me it makes sense to provide the building blocks, I have always wondered how much of it otherwise actually gets to the point of helping the joints.
 
Just to clarify, if in research you are looking for a large change in an animal, you do not need hundreds of them in order to make it statistically representative. 8 animals does not make it a poor test.
 
Thanks ester. I managed to view it on Ali2's link. Thanks Ali2. Thanks to all who responded. Not really sure what to make of it. A double blind study seems conclusive even though only few horses were used. MMMmmmm.............??
 
Agreed, if you are looking for a large change then a small sample size is OK. BUT I still doubt the methodology used and would like to know what the power and confidence levels were for those statistical p values.
 
ditto ali2 would like to see an actual paper format with more info will see if i can find anything

I know that sample sizes using animals are often smaller than you might have in other trial and imo with the methods used they were looking for small changes in the symmetry of the animals gait in which case the sample size does matter.
 
From what I've found it was published as a conference paper but I can't find the conference proceedings. Not sure how much detail goes in conference papers (?). Have only recently returned to proper R&D so am just getting to grips with 'real' science again LOL. There are a few graphs on the link I posted in which the differences between placebo and CF look very small but are claimed to be significantly different. I'm not convinced with a sample size of 8 animals that differences that small can be statistically significant with any great confidence/power :S
 
if you can get it looks like an interesting review of the research done on equine nutreceuticals:

Equine Veterinary Journal [0425-1644] Pearson yr:2009 vol:41 iss:7 pg:706 -712

it doesnt want to let me in but we have a copy at uni, it says 3 of 15 studies were ok, interested to know which 3!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top