ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2021
An Analysis for Adulteration and Contamination of Over-the-Counter Weight-Loss Products.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- From 'traditional' remedies to 'modern' supplements: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmaceutical adulteration in weight-loss natural products.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Six Australian and five overseas complementary medicines (CM) and meal replacement shake products were analysed for potential adulteration with two common active pharmaceutical ingredients, caffeine and sibutramine, using thin-layer chromatography and mass spectrometry. The declared amount of caffeine in each product was also reviewed. Finally, the products were examined for heavy metal contamination using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. The results showed that there was no detected adulteration of either caffeine (for those products that did not list caffeine as an ingredient) or sibutramine in the 11 products; however, based on the product labels, one Australian and one overseas (two in total) CM product contained more than the maximum daily safety limit (400 mg) of caffeine. Potentially excessive lead and/or chromium was detected in six products, including four Australian products and two products purchased online. One Australian CM product appeared to contain these heavy metals at concentrations at, or exceeding, the safety limits specified in the United States Pharmacopeia or set by the World Health Organization. The overconsumption of caffeine and heavy metals has the potential of causing significant health effects in consumers.
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.