The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
What Should Dietary Supplement Oversight Look Like in the US?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, May 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2022.402 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth Richardson, Farzana Akkas, Amy B Cadwallader |
| Abstract |
Most American adults who use dietary supplements (eg, vitamins, minerals, plant and animal extracts, hormones, and amino acids) ingest them orally. The market for these products has grown rapidly and significantly over the last 25 years, but consumer protection regulations have not kept pace. In the United States, supplements' safety is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but statutory limitations prevent the FDA from effectively regulating these products, exacerbate public health risk, and have generated numerous calls for reform. This article considers key features of reforms likely to strengthen the FDA's capacity to promote safety and consumer protection. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 22% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 27 June 2024.
All research outputs
#1,079,559
of 26,198,325 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#302
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,622
of 450,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#4
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,198,325 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 450,979 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.