Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31919792›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2020

Critical Differences Between Dietary Supplement and Prescription Omega-3 Fatty Acids: A Narrative Review.

Daniel E Hilleman, Barbara S Wiggins, Michael B Bottorff

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Do patients benefit from omega-3 fatty acids?Cardiovascular research · 2024
    Review
  12. Cancer patients' behaviors and attitudes toward natural health products.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review for Pharmacists.Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. RETRACTED: Cold-PressedAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel E HillemanSchool of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA. danielhilleman@creighton.edu.
Barbara S WigginsMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Michael B BottorffDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Manchester University, Fort Wayne, IN, USA.
Creighton University · USManchester University · USMedical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCurrently available omega-3 (OM-3) fatty acid products in the US are either nonprescription dietary supplements (e.g., fish oils) or prescription (Rx) medications. As such, we aimed to describe critical therapeutic differences among the OM-3 fatty acids, focusing on differences between fish oil supplements and Rx OM-3s.

methodsA narrative review of known papers salient to this topic was conducted.

resultsDespite the multiple purported clinical benefits, the published evidence for OM-3 dietary supplements is generally insufficient, inconsistent, or negative. Rx OM-3 products are indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglycerides (TG) in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 500 mg/dl). Recently, the Rx eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-only OM-3, icosapent ethyl, demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction among statin-treated patients at high risk of CV disease in a large CV outcomes trial (CVOT), and is now also indicated as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adult patients with elevated TG (≥ 150 mg/dL) and established CVD or diabetes mellitus and ≥ 2 additional risk factors for CVD. In contrast to the rigorous regulatory standards for safety, efficacy, and manufacturing of medications (whether Rx or over the counter), the Food and Drug Administration manages dietary supplements as food. Issues specific to OM-3 dietary supplements include variable content, labeling inconsistencies, and poor product quality/impurity. Given these issues, OM-3 dietary supplements should not be substituted for Rx OM-3 products. The efficacy of the EPA-only Rx OM-3 product in a large CVOT cannot be extrapolated to other OM-3 products.

conclusionConsumers and health care providers need to recognize critical differences between Rx and OM-3 dietary supplements to ensure appropriate use of each OM-3 product.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesEicosapentaenoic AcidFatty Acids, Omega-3FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNonprescription DrugsPrescription DrugsUnited StatesEicosapentaenoic AcidFatty Acids, Omega-3Nonprescription DrugsPrescription DrugsCardiovascular diseaseDietary supplementsDocosahexaenoic acidEicosapentaenoic acidFish oilsHypertriglyceridemiaIcosapent ethylOmega-3-fatty acids

Identifiers

PMID31919792
PMCPMC6999166
OpenAlexW2999479781

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.