ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2019
Comparing the Study Populations in Dietary Supplement and Drug Clinical Trials for Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Probiotic intake and mental health in healthy working adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Review of Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Deep Learning Approach to Parse Eligibility Criteria in Dietary Supplements Clinical Trials Following OMOP Common Data Model.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials are essential in exploring the safety and efficacy of a new intervention. However, restrictive eligibility criteria pose recruitment challenges that could prolong study durations and reduce study generalizability to the real-world population. The objective of this study is to compare the study populations of dietary supplement (DS) and drug trials on metabolic syndrome related conditions. Using the COMPACT database, we retrieved the DS and drug trials related to metabolic syndrome and performed aggregate analyses on the study populations with respect to various quantitative eligibility criteria. We also extracted and compared baseline characteristics, both quantitative and qualitative, of recruited patients in completed trials. We found similarities and differences in baseline characteristics of enrolled patients between drug and DS clinical trials on metabolic syndrome-related conditions. This comparative aggregate analysis is an initial step towards improving patient recruitment efficacy and population representativeness for clinical trials across conditions and intervention types.
Identifiers
31259037PMC6568097W2997372541What 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.