ArticleJAMA network open2025
Label Statements and Perceived Health Benefits of Dietary Supplements.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Patterns in Dietary Supplement Use Among US Adults, 1999-2023.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Dietary Supplements' Regulation: Are We Doing Enough to Protect the Children? A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Fear and Medical Misinformation Regarding Risk of Progression or Recurrence Among Patients with Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Exploring Dietary Supplement Utilization Patterns Among African American Survivors of Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Nutrients · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Dietary supplement use is widespread, and their labels often contain structure/function claims (eg, supports heart or brain health), which legally are not intended to imply the supplement prevents or treats a disease. How structure/function statements are interpreted by consumers, however, is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate how commonly used structure/function claims are associated with consumer beliefs regarding the health benefits of supplements. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted 2 online survey studies of US adults participating in the SurveyMonkey Audience platform, one for a fish oil supplement and one for a hypothetical supplement called Viadin H. For each survey, participants were randomized to 1 of 4 labels that were otherwise identical but had different health-related label statements (eg, supports heart health, cognitive function) and then asked about the supplement's health benefits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of participants who reported that the supplement was somewhat likely or very likely to prevent or treat a list of diseases. Results: Overall, 2239 participants completed the fish oil survey (473 [21.5%] aged 45-54 years; 1142 [52.6%] women), and 2164 completed the Viadin H survey (510 [23.7%] aged 45-54 years; 1085 [51.2%] women). Respondents shown the fish oil label that said "Supports Heart Health" were more likely than those shown a no-claim control to report that it prevents heart attacks (370 of 592 [62.5%] vs 306 of 568 [53.9%]; P = .003) and heart failure (349 [59.0%] vs 288 [50.7%]; P = .005). Those shown the "Supports Cognitive Function" label claim were more likely to report that fish oil prevents dementia (255 of 538 [47.4%] vs 225 [39.6%]; P = .009) and improves memory in dementia (258 [48.0%] vs 230 [40.5%]; P = .01) compared with those shown no-claim labels. For Viadin H, those shown a label stating "Heart Health" or "Supports Heart Function" were more likely to report the supplement prevents heart attack or heart failure, while those shown a label stating "Brain Health" or "Supports Cognitive Function" were more likely to report the supplement prevented dementia or improved memory (eg, lower risk of heart attack: "Heart Health" label, 209 of 525 [40.0%]; "Supports Heart Function" label, 225 of 556 [40.5%]; "Brain Health" label, 113 of 556 [20.2%]; and "Supports Cognitive Function" label, 124 of 536 [23.3%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, commonly used structure/function claims on supplement labels were often misinterpreted by consumers to imply a disease-specific benefit, contrary to their regulatory intent. Improved regulations for supplement labeling may be needed to minimize consumer misunderstanding.
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.