Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 27

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data Brief 399: Dietary Supplement Use Among Adults: United States, 2017–2018

·2021

Abstract

This report describes recent prevalence estimates for dietary supplement use among U.S. adults, the distribution of the number of dietary supplements used, and the most common types of dietary supplements used.

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 · 10.15620/cdc:101131

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Percentage of adults aged 20 and over who used any dietary supplement, by sex and age: United States, 2017-2018
Figure 1 Percentage of adults aged 20 and over who used any dietary supplement, by sex and age: United States, 2017-2018CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Number of dietary supplements used by adults aged 20 and over, by age: United States, 2017-2018
Figure 2 Number of dietary supplements used by adults aged 20 and over, by age: United States, 2017-2018CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Most common types of dietary supplements used by adults aged 20 and over, by age: United States, 2017-2018
Figure 3 Most common types of dietary supplements used by adults aged 20 and over, by age: United States, 2017-2018CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Trends in age-adjusted percentage of adults aged 20 and over who used any dietary supplement: United States, 2007-2008 through 2017-2018
Figure 4 Trends in age-adjusted percentage of adults aged 20 and over who used any dietary supplement: United States, 2007-2008 through 2017-2018CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY · From the PDF

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Published
2021-02-26
Cited by
27
References
6

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.