ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2016
The Importance of Method Selection in Determining Product Integrity for Nutrition Research.
Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing medicinal plant agriculture: integrating technology and precision agriculture for sustainability.PeerJ · 2025Review
- Detecting and Profiling of Milk Thistle Metabolites in Food Supplements: A Safety-Oriented Approach by Advanced Analytics.Metabolites · 2023Review
- Have safety and efficacy assessments of bioactives come of age?Molecular aspects of medicine · 2023Review
- The Importance of Reference Materials and Method Validation for Advancing Research on the Health Effects of Dietary Supplements and Other Natural Products.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Review
- Determination of Curcuminoids in Turmeric Dietary Supplements by HPLC-DAD: Multi-laboratory Study Through the NIH-ODS/NIST Quality Assurance Program.Journal of AOAC International · 2020Article
- Selection and characterization of botanical natural products for research studies: a NaPDI center recommended approach.Natural product reports · 2019Review
- Integrated analytical assets aid botanical authenticity and adulteration management.Fitoterapia · 2018Review
- Challenges in Developing Analytically Validated Laboratory-Derived Dietary Supplement Databases.The Journal of nutrition · 2018Article
- Review
- Methods for the Chemical Analysis of β-N-Methylamino-L-A lanine: What Is Known and What Remains to Be Determined.Neurotoxicity research · 2018Review
- Leaner and greener analysis of cannabinoids.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American Herbal Products Association estimates that there as many as 3000 plant species in commerce. The FDA estimates that there are about 85,000 dietary supplement products in the marketplace. The pace of product innovation far exceeds that of analytical methods development and validation, with new ingredients, matrixes, and combinations resulting in an analytical community that has been unable to keep up. This has led to a lack of validated analytical methods for dietary supplements and to inappropriate method selection where methods do exist. Only after rigorous validation procedures to ensure that methods are fit for purpose should they be used in a routine setting to verify product authenticity and quality. By following systematic procedures and establishing performance requirements for analytical methods before method development and validation, methods can be developed that are both valid and fit for purpose. This review summarizes advances in method selection, development, and validation regarding herbal supplement analysis and provides several documented examples of inappropriate method selection and application.
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.