Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34970578›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2021

The Importance of Reference Materials and Method Validation for Advancing Research on the Health Effects of Dietary Supplements and Other Natural Products.

Sanem Hosbas Coskun, Stephen A Wise, Adam J Kuszak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Large variability in the alkaloid content ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Sanem Hosbas CoskunOffice of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Stephen A WiseOffice of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Adam J KuszakOffice of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insufficient assessment of the identity and chemical composition of complex natural products, including botanicals, herbal remedies, and dietary supplements, hinders reproducible research and limits understanding mechanism(s) of action and health outcomes, which in turn impede improvements in clinical practice and advances in public health. This review describes available analytical resources and good methodological practices that support natural product characterization and strengthen the knowledge gained for designing and interpreting safety and efficacy investigations. The practice of validating analytical methods demonstrates that measurements of constituents of interest are reproducible and appropriate for the sample (e.g., plant material, phytochemical extract, and biological specimen). In particular, the utilization of matrix-based reference materials enables researchers to assess the accuracy, precision, and sensitivity of analytical measurements of natural product constituents, including dietary ingredients and their metabolites. Select case studies are presented where the careful application of these resources and practices has enhanced experimental rigor and benefited research on dietary supplement health effects.

Indexed as

chemical characterizationdietary supplement (DS) analysismethod validationnatural product (NP)reference material (RM)

Identifiers

PMID34970578
PMCPMC8713974

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.