Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17535442›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2007

Supplement use in sport: is there a potentially dangerous incongruence between rationale and practice?

Andrea Petróczi, Declan P Naughton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Common questions and misconceptions about diets: what does the scientific evidence really show?Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Dietary supplementation and doping-related factors in high-level sailing.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2012
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Nutritional supplement use by elite young UK athletes: fallacies of advice regarding efficacy.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2008
    Article
  10. Psychological drivers in doping: the life-cycle model of performance enhancement.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2008
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Performance enhancement with supplements: incongruence between rationale and practice.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2007
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrea PetrócziSchool of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK. A.Petroczi@kingston.ac.uk
Declan P Naughton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupplement use by athletes is complex and research supports the alarming notion of misinformed decisions regarding supplements. HYPOTHESIS: A frequent divergence between the type of supplements chosen by athletes and the rationale dictating the supplement use is hypothesized. Thus, a potentially dangerous incongruence may exist between rationale and practice. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS: In the continued absence of reliable data on supplement use, an alternative approach of studying the reasons underlying supplement use in athletes is proposed to determine whether there is an incongruence between rationale and practice. Existing data from large scale national surveys can be used to investigate this incongruence. IMPLICATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS: In this report, analyses of distinctive patterns between the use and rationale for use of supplements among athletes are recommended to explore this potentially dangerous phenomenon.

Identifiers

PMID17535442
PMCPMC1904455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.