ArticleDigital health
Health halo effect in supplement marketing: A content analysis of unregulated medical claims in community pharmacies.
Article in Digital health. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dietary supplements are widely promoted online, often using persuasive health claims that may contribute to the "health halo effect," where consumers may infer unproven therapeutic benefits. In Saudi Arabia, the rise of online listings by nutraceutical and dietary supplement companies has amplified the visibility of such claims, raising questions about their regulatory compliance. Objective: To examine the nature and regulatory risk of health-related claims in dietary supplements marketed by nutraceutical and dietary supplement companies through Saudi pharmacy websites and assess their alignment with SFDA guidelines. Methods: A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on 209 supplement products which yielded 251 distinct health-related claims extracted from leading Saudi pharmacy websites. Claims were thematically categorized and assessed using a rule-based natural language processing (NLP) classifier aligned with Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) regulatory tiers. Each claim was assigned a risk level of low, medium, or high, based on language and references to medical conditions. A verb frequency analysis was conducted to explore linguistic patterns. Chi-square testing was used to examine the association between claim categories and regulatory risk. Results: Of the 251 claims analyzed, 173 (68.9%) were classified as low risk, 7 (2.8%) as medium risk, and 71 (28.3%) as high risk. The most common claim categories were bone/joint health (14%), immune support (10%), general wellness/wellbeing (10%), hair/skin/nails (7%), energy/fatigue (7%), antioxidant/detox (6%), and cardiovascular health (6%). High-risk claims were most concentrated in categories related to bone/joint health, general wellness, and cardiovascular support. The most frequent action verbs were "support," "improve," and "treat." A significant association was observed between claim category and regulatory risk level (p < 0.001). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of supplement claims implies therapeutic benefit. Strengthening regulatory oversight and consumer education is essential to mitigate the health halo effect and ensure safe supplement use.
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.