Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Joints, muscles and pain

Boronand Joint pain (osteoarthritis)

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower joint pain (osteoarthritis).

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The numbers reported

-13.73
WOMAC score points, estimated treatment difference vs placebo at day 14

None of these sources gave a likely range — the band the real answer probably sits in — so how precise these numbers are is still an open question here.

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Randomised trial, 2014 · 60 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Short-term efficacy of calcium fructoborate on subjects with knee discomfort: a comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.

    Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:895-9. doi:10.2147/CIA.S64590. PMID:24940052.

    This source later carried a notice: Erratum in Clin Interv Aging. 2021 Feb 02;16:203. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S293124. The number below is exactly as the source gave it.

    Number reported
    -13.73
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    WOMAC score points, estimated treatment difference vs placebo at day 14
    Who was studied
    Adult with knee discomfort
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    220 mg/d calcium fructoborate (110 mg twice daily)
    For how long
    14 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Boron

Six of the 15 things on our list for Boron have no reading here yet:

  • Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR)
  • Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH)
  • Phosphate (Inorganic Phosphorus)
  • Respiratory rate
  • Serum magnesium
  • White blood cell count

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.