Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29300341›Full record

ReviewNutrients2018

Dietary Supplements: Regulatory Challenges and Research Resources.

Johanna T Dwyer, Paul M Coates, Michael J Smith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 178 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
178citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

178 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Johanna T DwyerOffice of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-7517, USA. dwyerj1@od.nih.gov.
Paul M CoatesOffice of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-7517, USA. coatesp@od.nih.gov.
Michael J SmithNational Center for Natural Products Research, University of Mississippi, MS 38677, USA. m.j.smith@westernsydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many of the scientific and regulatory challenges that exist in research on the safety, quality and efficacy of dietary supplements are common to all countries as the marketplace for them becomes increasingly global. This article summarizes some of the challenges in supplement science and provides a case study of research at the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, USA, along with some resources it has developed that are available to all scientists. It includes examples of some of the regulatory challenges faced and some resources for those who wish to learn more about them.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAnimalsBiomedical ResearchConsumer Product SafetyGovernment RegulationHealth PolicyHumansPolicy MakingQuality ControlRisk AssessmentTerminology as Topiccomplementary medicinedietary supplementsfood supplementsNational Institutes of Healthnatural health productOffice of Dietary Supplementsregulatory challengesscientific challengessupplement sciencetraditional medicines

Identifiers

PMID29300341
PMCPMC5793269

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.