Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Internet Marketing of Herbal Products

Morris, Charles A.·2003·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994 restricted the Food and Drug Administration's control over dietary supplements, leading to enormous growth in their promotion. The Internet is often used by consumers as a source of information on such therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the information presented and indications claimed on the Internet for the 8 best-selling herbal products. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Internet using the 5 most commonly used search engines. For each, we entered the names of the 8 most widely used herbal supplements (ginkgo biloba, St John's wort, echinacea, ginseng, garlic, saw palmetto, kava kava, and valerian root). We analyzed the health content of all Web sites listed on the first page of the search results. STUDY SELECTION: We analyzed all accessible, English-language Web sites that pertained to oral herbal supplements. A total of 522 Web sites were identified; of these, 443 sites met inclusion criteria for the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: The nature of the Web site (retail or nonretail), whether it was a sponsored link, and all references, indications, claims, and disclaimers were recorded. Two reviewers independently categorized medical claims as disease or nondisease according to Food and Drug Administration criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 443 Web sites, 338 (76%) were retail sites either selling product or directly linked to a vendor. A total of 273 (81%) of the 338 retail Web sites made 1 or more health claims; of these, 149 (55%) claimed to treat, prevent, diagnose, or cure specific diseases. More than half (153/292; 52%) of sites with a health claim omitted the standard federal disclaimer. Nonretail sites were more likely than retail sites to include literature references, although only 52 (12%) of the 443 Web sites provided referenced information without a link to a distributor or vendor. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers may be misled by vendors' claims that herbal products can treat, prevent, diagnose, or cure specific diseases, despite regulations prohibiting such statements. Physicians should be aware of this widespread and easily accessible information. More effective regulation is required to put this class of therapeutics on the same evidence-based footing as other medicinal products.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.290.11.1505

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Morris, C. A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-09-17
Volume
290
Issue
11
Pages
1505
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2118748621
Cited by
277
References
1
FWCI
42.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.