ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2008
Does the evidence make a difference in consumer behavior? Sales of supplements before and after publication of negative research results.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and toxicity of saw palmetto in the CAMUS trial.The Journal of urology · 2013Trial
- Changes in prevalence of psychotropic drug use and alcohol consumption among the elderly in Germany: results of two National Health Interview and Examination Surveys 1997-99 and 2008-11.BMC psychiatry · 2017Article
- Hyperspectral imaging and chemometric modeling of echinacea - a novel approach in the quality control of herbal medicines.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2014Article
- Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Vitamin Supplementation among Patients visiting Out-Patient Physicians in a Teaching Hospital in Karachi.Oman medical journal · 2012Article
- St. John's Wort constituents modulate P-glycoprotein transport activity at the blood-brain barrier.Pharmaceutical research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if the public consumption of herbs, vitamins, and supplements changes in light of emerging negative evidence.
methodsWe describe trends in annual US sales of five major supplements in temporal relationship with publication of research from three top US general medical journals published from 2001 through early 2006 and the number of news citations associated with each publication using the Lexus-Nexis database.
resultsIn four of five supplements (St. John's wort, echinacea, saw palmetto, and glucosamine), there was little or no change in sales trends after publication of research results. In one instance, however, dramatic changes in sales occurred following publication of data suggesting harm from high doses of vitamin E.
conclusionResults reporting harm may have a greater impact on supplement consumption than those demonstrating lack of efficacy. In order for clinical trial evidence to influence public behavior, there needs to be a better understanding of the factors that influence the translation of evidence in the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.