ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Dialogue and sports supplementation: reflections from the social sciences: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review investigates sports supplementation research from a social science perspective, focusing on the period from 2014 to 2024. Given the absence of a standard definition and shared taxonomy, the article explores the intricate interrelations among nutritional, psychological, commercial, cultural, historical, and sociological dimensions that constitute this field. Methods: A systematic review methodology was employed in accordance with the PRISMA protocol. Initially, 440 articles were screened, leading to a final selection of 56 relevant papers distributed across five central themes. Results: The analysis revealed complex interrelations among various dimensions, including nutritional, psychological, commercial, cultural, historical, and sociological factors. The five identified themes are as follows: Attitudes towards Supplements and Doping ( Discussion: The findings support a dual taxonomy for classifying supplements into functional foods, individual nutrients, ergogenic supplements, and multi-ingredient products. Furthermore, they establish a hierarchy of scientific evidence, positioning randomised controlled trials as the "gold standard." This research underscores how contemporary diets integrate cultural traditions, scientific advancements, and technological developments, while emphasising critical dualities: health vs. energy metabolism, risk vs. benefit, and safety vs. effectiveness.
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.