ArticleJournal of AOAC International
A non-targeted approach to chemical discrimination between green tea dietary supplements and green tea leaves by HPLC/MS.
Article in Journal of AOAC International. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-Neuroinflammatory Effects of Compounds Isolated fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mitigation ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Phenolic Profile ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Analysis of Phenolic Compositions in Cranberry Dietary Supplements using UHPLC-HRMS.Journal of food composition and analysis : an official publication of the United Nations University, International Network of Food Data Systems · 2020Article
- Scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
- Tea and flavonoids: where we are, where to go next.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2013Article
- Prevention and treatment of alopecia areata with quercetin in the C3H/HeJ mouse model.Cell stress & chaperones · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Green tea-based dietary supplements (GTDSs) have gained popularity in the U.S. market in recent years. This study evaluated the phytochemical composition difference of GTDS in comparison with green tea leaves using an HPLC/MS fingerprinting technique coupled with chemometric analysis. Five components that are most responsible for class separation among samples were identified as (-) epicatechin gallate, strictinin, trigalloylglucose, quercetin-3-O-glucosyl-rhamnosylglucoside, and kaempferol-3-O-galactosyl-rhamnosylglucoside, according to the accurate mass measurements and MS/MS data. The similarity coefficients between the GTDSs in solid form with green tea were 0.55 to 0.91, while for the GTDSs in liquid form they were 0.12 to 0.89, which suggested that chemical composition variance across the GTDSs was significant. Flavonol aglycone concentrations were higher in GTDSs than in tea leaves, indicating the degradation of flavonol glycosides or the oxidation of catechin during the manufacturing and storage processes. In some GTDS samples, compounds were identified that were on the label. The results demonstrate the urgency of QC for GTDS products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21563682PMC3600169W26792745What 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.