The clinical evidence sits with the oral extract. Kuptniratsaikul and
colleagues (2009) randomised 107 patients with knee osteoarthritis to
Curcuma domestica (= C. longa) extract at 2 g/day or ibuprofen for six
weeks and reported similar improvement in both arms [4]. The same group's
2014 multicentre trial (n=367) found the extract at 1,500 mg/day
non-inferior to ibuprofen on WOMAC scores over four weeks, with fewer
gastrointestinal complaints [5]. Daily and colleagues' 2016 meta-analysis
of randomised trials concluded that around 1,000 mg/day of curcumin
relieved arthritis symptoms, while stating that the number and quality of
trials was insufficient for definitive conclusions [6].
That last sentence is why this entry is B rather than A — and one caveat
matters more than any of it: the traditional preparation this monograph
describes is a warming paste on the skin, and no randomised trial of a
topical param-style preparation has been published. The oral evidence
establishes that the plant's chemistry is clinically interesting; it does
not validate the traditional format.
Since that meta-analysis the picture has been refined rather than
overturned. A dose-stratified meta-analysis of eleven randomised trials
(n=1,258) examined high- and low-dose curcumin against pain and function
scores [8]; a Bayesian network meta-analysis compared curcuminoid
formulations with NSAIDs and placebo [9]; and a 2025 network meta-analysis
ranked turmeric preparations for knee osteoarthritis [10]. A 2025 umbrella
appraisal of these reviews is candid that their methodological quality
varies [11]. None of this changes the central caveat: every trial used oral
extract at gram doses, and the traditional preparation described above is a
paste on the skin.