Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31105335›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of nutrition2018

Federal Monitoring of Dietary Supplement Use in the Resident, Civilian, Noninstitutionalized US Population, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Jaime J Gahche, Regan L Bailey, Nancy Potischman, Abby G Ershow, Kirsten A Herrick, Namanjeet Ahluwalia, Johanna T Dwyer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Hepatotoxicity due to herbal dietary supplements: Past, present and the future.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jaime J GahcheNational Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, Bethesda MD.
Regan L BaileyDepartment of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Nancy PotischmanNational Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, Bethesda MD.
Abby G ErshowNational Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, Bethesda MD.
Kirsten A HerrickDivision of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD.
Namanjeet AhluwaliaDivision of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD.
Johanna T DwyerNational Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, Bethesda MD.
Office of Dietary Supplements · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USPurdue University West Lafayette · USTufts University · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This review summarizes the current and previous data on dietary supplement (DS) use collected from participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), describes the NHANES dietary supplement database used to compute nutrient intakes from DSs, discussed recent developments and future direction, and describes many examples to demonstrate the utility of these data in informing nutrition research and policy. Background and History: Since 1971, NHANES, has been collecting information on the use of DSs from participants. These data are critical to national nutrition surveillance and have been used to characterize usage patterns, examine trends over time, assess the percentage of the population meeting or exceeding nutrient recommendations, and to help elucidate the sources contributing nutrients to the diet of the US population. Rationale: Over half of adults and about one-third of children in the United States use at least one dietary supplement in the past 30 days. Dietary supplements contribute to the dietary intake of nutrients and bioactive compounds in the US and therefore need to be assessed when monitoring nutritional status of the population and when studying diet-health associations. Recent Developments: With the recent development and availability of the Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD), a comprehensive DS database that will eventually contain labels for all products marketed in the US, NHANES DS data will be more easily linked to product information to estimate nutrient intake from DS. Future Directions: Over time, NHANES has both expanded and improved collection methods. The continued understanding of sources of error in collection methods will continue to be explored and is critical to improved accuracy. Conclusions: NHANES provides a rich source of nationally representative data on the usage of dietary supplements in the US.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsNutrition SurveysPatient Acceptance of Health CareDatabases, FactualFederal GovernmentHumansNutrientsProduct LabelingUnited StatesNutrientsdietary supplementsepidemiologymonitoringNHANESnutritional surveillancenutrition databasessupplement labels

Identifiers

PMID31105335
PMCPMC6516064
OpenAlexW2887294153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.