ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2026
Post-marketing surveillance of cordyceps products online: identifying falsified products and regulatory challenges.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe outbreak of acute kidney injury linked to Cordyceps products in Thailand prompted an assessment of their quality. The study aimed to identify the falsification of dietary supplements containing Cordyceps species and to evaluate legal compliance.
methodsA survey and experimental studies focused on oral Cordyceps products selected through convenience sampling, sold online. Chemical and microscopic examinations were performed, and thin-layer chromatography was used to identify cordycepin and adenosine in the products. Steroid test kits were employed to detect corticosteroid adulteration. The products’ registration number and advertising approvals by the Thai FDA were verified.
resultsSixty-five products were included in the study. 54.3% of the products were falsified, involving the substitution of C. sinensis with C. militaris or the absence of the labeled species and the incorrect form of Cordyceps. The prevalence of products containing cordycepin and C. militaris was 53.8%. Among the products, 11% were unregistered, and 6.2% were found to be adulterated with corticosteroids. The prevalence of products with legally compliant physical labeling was 78.5%. However, 73.8% of the products made disease claims through social media.
conclusionsThe study highlights that the regulation of dietary supplements containing Cordyceps in Thailand does not fully comply with legal standards. Therefore, the public should be aware of these issues. The Thai FDA should enhance its post-market surveillance system for health products to protect better consumers, which is regularly inspect the quality of herbal products registered through the notification system and strictly regulate the proper labeling of these products, including clearly indicating the herbal species, form of active ingredient (such as extract or powder), and the amount of active ingredient in the extract (e.g., cordycepin).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.