Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064655›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2022

Exploration of facilitators and barriers to the regulatory frameworks of dietary and herbal supplements: a scoping review.

Jeremy Y Ng, Minji Kim, Ayush Suri

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Medicinal Values and Potential Risks Evaluation ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Jeremy Y NgDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-5873
Minji Kim *Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Ayush Suri *Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade, the use of dietary and herbal supplements (DHSs) has expanded greatly across national healthcare settings for the prevention, management and/or treatment of a variety of health issues. Although regulatory policies for DHSs across different countries have been aimed towards evaluating safety and efficacy, performing quality controls, monitoring the manufacturing practices, and encouraging further research, significant safety issues have emerged from inappropriate regulatory classification, lack of suitable quality controls, and inadequate testing and labeling of these products. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify facilitators and barriers to DHS regulation across different countries.

methodsA scoping review was conducted and informed by the five-stage methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and further enhanced by Levac et al. MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched for eligible articles from database inception to September 29, 2020. Studies analyzing DHS regulatory frameworks were eligible for review. Relevant data from eligible articles were extracted and categorized into themes to provide a descriptive overview of the literature.

resultsSearches generated 4314 results, 1800 of which were duplicates, followed by 2472 that were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts of these articles. Of the remaining 42 full-texts, 15 eligible articles were included in this review. Themes identified include: (1) increased financial and human resources encouraging knowledge expansion as a facilitator to DHS regulation; (2) variances in DHS classification and regulatory requirements across countries as a barrier to DHS regulation, and (3) collaboration between various stakeholders (experts, policymakers, representatives of regulatory bodies, product companies and research institutions) facilitating DHS regulation.

conclusionThe present scoping review identified facilitators and barriers to DHS regulation across different countries. We highlight that safety assessments of DHSs continue to be inadequate, and emerging technologies could potentially play a significant role in establishing common reference standards of herbal materials and products between regulatory agencies. Regulatory harmonization, increased scientific research, and collaboration could improve regulations globally through appropriate categorization and safe application of DHSs.

Indexed as

Dietary health supplementsHealth policyRegulationRegulatory frameworksScoping review

Identifiers

PMID36064655
PMCPMC9442913

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.