↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of Dietary Supplement Use by Athletes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
54 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
298 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
733 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence of Dietary Supplement Use by Athletes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0387-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph J. Knapik, Ryan A. Steelman, Sally S. Hoedebecke, Krista G. Austin, Emily K. Farina, Harris R. Lieberman

Abstract

Dietary supplements (DSs) are commercially available products consumed as an addition to the usual diet and are frequently ingested by athletes. Our objective was to examine the prevalence of DS use by athletes. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, OVID Healthstar, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched for original research articles published up to August 2014. Search terms included specific sports, specific DSs, and other terms. Studies were selected if they were written in English, involved athletes, and provided a quantitative assessment of the proportion of athletes using specific DSs. Percent of athletes using specific DSs. Methodological quality of studies was assessed by three reviewers using an 8-point scale that included evaluations for sampling methods, sampling frame, sample size, measurement tools, bias, response rate, statistical presentation, and description of the participant sample. Where there were at least two investigations, meta-analysis was performed to obtain summary (pooled) prevalence estimates (SPEs) on (1) DS use prevalence by sport and sex, (2) DS use prevalence by elite versus non-elite athletic status, and (3) specific DS prevalence for all athletic groups combined. Meta-analyses included evaluations of homogeneity and publication bias. A total of 159 unique studies met the review criteria. Methodological quality was generally low with an average ± standard deviation of 43 ± 16 % of available rating points. There was low homogeneity for SPEs when compiled by sport, athletic status, and/or specific DSs. Contributing to the lack of homogeneity were differences in studies' objectives and types of assessments used (e.g., dietary surveys, interviews, questionnaires). Despite these limitations, the data generally indicated that elite athletes used DSs much more than their non-elite counterparts. For most DSs, use prevalence was similar for men and women except that a larger proportion of women used iron while a larger proportion of men used vitamin E, protein, and creatine. No consistent change in use over time was observed because even the earliest investigations showed relatively high use prevalence. It was difficult to generalize regarding DS use by athletes because of the lack of homogeneity among studies. Nonetheless, the data suggested that elite athletes used dietary supplements far more than their non-elite counterparts; use was similar for men and women with a few exceptions; use appeared to change little over time; and a larger proportion of athletes used DSs compared with the general US population. Improvements in study methodology should be considered in future studies especially (1) defining DSs for participants; (2) querying for very specific DSs; (3) using a variety of reporting timeframes (e.g., daily, 2-6 times/week, 1 time/week and <1 time/week); (4) reporting the sampling frame, number of individuals solicited, and number responding; (5) reporting characteristics of volunteers (and non-volunteers, if available); and (6) using similar methods on several occasions to examine possible temporal trends among athletes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 X users 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 733 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 728 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 150 20%
Student > Master 113 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 9%
Researcher 45 6%
Student > Postgraduate 37 5%
Other 118 16%
Unknown 207 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 132 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 109 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 90 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 3%
Other 87 12%
Unknown 234 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#589,656
of 23,452,723 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#554
of 2,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,229
of 279,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#13
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,452,723 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 279,366 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 72% of its contemporaries.