↓ Skip to main content

Availability of Weight-Loss Supplements: Results of an Audit of Retail Outlets in a Southeastern City

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Availability of Weight-Loss Supplements: Results of an Audit of Retail Outlets in a Southeastern City
Published in
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, December 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia A Sharpe, Michelle L Granner, Joan M Conway, Barbara E Ainsworth, Mirela Dobre

Abstract

The sale of nonprescription weight-loss products accounts for millions of dollars spent by Americans trying to lose weight, yet there is little evidence for effectiveness and there are multiple safety concerns. The purpose of this study was to determine what products, and ingredients within products, were available at retail outlets in a metropolitan area. A purposive sampling strategy identified 73 retail outlets. An audit form was used to collect information from product labels. The audit identified 402 products containing 4,053 separate ingredients. The mean number of ingredients per product was 9.9+/-8.96 (range = 1 to 96). A database search was conducted regarding evidence for effectiveness, safety precautions, and side effects for the 10 ingredients that appeared most often across products. Modest evidence of effectiveness exists for green tea (Camellia sinensis), chromium picolinate, and ma huang (Ephedra major). For the remaining seven (ginger root [Zingiber officinale], guarana [Paullinia cupana], hydroxycitric acid [Garcinia cambogia], white willow [Salix alba], Siberian ginseng [Eleutherococcus senticosus], cayenne [Capsicum annuum], and bitter orange/zhi shi [Citrus aurantium]), inadequate or negative evidence exists. Although precautions and contraindications were found for all 10 ingredients, the strongest concerns in the literature appear for ma huang, bitter orange, and guarana. Our audit revealed numerous weight-loss products available to consumers, yet there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of the top 10 ingredients identified and many potential adverse reactions; therefore, food and nutrition professionals should discuss dietary supplement use with their clients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,671,941
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#1,023
of 3,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,272
of 169,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 169,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.