Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34345505›Full record

ReviewInnovations in pharmacy2021

A Comparison of Current Regulatory Frameworks for Nutraceuticals in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States.

Jessica Blaze

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Innovations in pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

1 author.

Jessica BlazeNova Southeastern University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nutraceutical market is growing and the demand for products is increasing. Consumers are looking for cheaper alternatives to prescription medications as well as health products to supplement their dietary intake on a regular basis. Many countries classify these products into different categories based on their health claims. The purpose of this review is to compare and contrast the differences of regulatory frameworks in countries of similar status in regard to nutraceutical products: vitamins, minerals, herbal supplements, and probiotics. This review also takes into consideration the aspects of nutraceutical safety in relation to government regulations. It is evident that further discussion is indicated with regard to the harmonization of nutraceutical product regulation in a global context in order to promote and protect public health. This literature review selected 27 documents for a review using a systematic search of internet databases and search engines including PUBMED and Google Scholar. These documents were reviewed and synthesized for data relating to nutraceutical regulation within the four different countries of focus. Outcomes included information on safety and toxicity, drug interactions, classification of products, and regulatory processes for nutraceutical product approval in each country.

Indexed as

Dietary supplementsHerbal supplementsmineralsnutraceuticalsProbioticsregulationRegulatory frameworkVitamins

Identifiers

PMID34345505
PMCPMC8326690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.