Dataset Information

Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Testosterone-boosting supplements (T-Boosters) are prominently featured on Amazon.com, with numerous dedicated pages and claims that they "naturally" increase testosterone levels. AIM:To evaluate the highest rated and frequently reviewed T-Boosters on Amazon.com to facilitate patient counseling regarding marketing myths, T-Booster formulations, and evidence for efficacy and safety. METHODS:The Amazon marketplace was queried using the key words "testosterone" + "booster," with default search settings and ranking items based on relevance. The top 5 T-Boosters identified on July 22, 2018, were reviewed based on price, ratings, reviews, manufacturer details, and ingredients. Consumer reviews were categorized using core themes in the Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) questionnaire as a proxy to understand T-Booster efficacy and reanalyzed after filtration of untrustworthy comments using ReviewMeta.com, a proprietary Amazon customer review analysis software. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of T-Boosters on Amazon.com was performed. RESULTS:The top 5 T-Boosters had an average ± SD of 2,761 ± 5,112 reviews and a rating of 4.56 ± 0.25 stars. 19 unique ingredients were identified across these T-Boosters, and literature review revealed 191 studies involving the 10 most common ingredients, of which 19% involved human subjects, 53% animal models, 15% in vitro studies, and 12% case reports or review articles. Among 37 human studies, 30% observed an increase in T levels, 3% a decrease, 46% no effect, and 22% were indeterminate. Analysis of top customer reviews from the first 2 pages of reviews for each supplement revealed differences in the ADAM score before and after ReviewMeta.com filtration. After filtration, there was a 91% decrease in users reporting increased libido, a 59% decrease in reports of increased energy, a 93% decrease in reports of improved strength/endurance, a 60% decrease in reports of improved erections, an elimination of reports of improved work performance, a 67% decrease in reports of improved sleep, and an 89% decrease in reports of improved sports ability. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:Our study can serve as a guide for providers to counsel patients about the efficacy of popular online T-Boosters as well as the prevalence of disingenuous reviews associated with these products on online marketplaces like Amazon.com. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS:Strengths include the novel approach to assess consumers' perceptions and satisfaction of T-Boosters, as well as summary information that clinicians can provide patients. Limitations include selection bias, a small number of supplements analyzed, and the proprietary nature of the Amazon review analysis software. CONCLUSION:T-Boosters are easily available online. Our investigation revealed that limited human studies have evaluated T-Boosters, resulting in no definitive findings of efficacy. In the absence of additional human studies, patients should be cautioned before considering T-Boosters, given the availability of highly effective therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Balasubramanian A, Thirumavalavan N, Srivatsav A, et al. Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements. J Sex Med 2019;16:203-212.

SUBMITTER: Balasubramanian A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6407704 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements.

Balasubramanian Adithya A Thirumavalavan Nannan N Srivatsav Ashwin A Yu Justin J Lipshultz Larry I LI Pastuszak Alexander W AW

The journal of sexual medicine 20190201 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Testosterone-boosting supplements (T-Boosters) are prominently featured on Amazon.com, with numerous dedicated pages and claims that they "naturally" increase testosterone levels.<h4>Aim</h4>To evaluate the highest rated and frequently reviewed T-Boosters on Amazon.com to facilitate patient counseling regarding marketing myths, T-Booster formulations, and evidence for efficacy and safety.<h4>Methods</h4>The Amazon marketplace was queried using the key words "testosterone" + ...[more]

PMID: 30770069

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBecause more patients are presenting with self-guided research of symptoms, it is important to assess the capabilities and limitations of these available health information tools.ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy of the most popular online symptom checker for ophthalmic diagnoses.Design, setting, and participantsIn a cross-sectional study, 42 validated clinical vignettes of ophthalmic symptoms were generated and distilled to their core presenting symptoms. Cases were entered into WebMD symptom checker by both medically trained and nonmedically trained personnel blinded to the diagnosis. Output from the symptom checker, including the number of symptoms, ranking and list of diagnoses, and triage urgency were recorded. The study was conducted on October 13, 2017. Analysis was performed between October 15, 2017, and April 30, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of the top 3 diagnoses generated by the online symptom checker.ResultsThe mean (SD) number of symptoms entered was 3.6 (1.6) (range, 1-8). The median (SD) number of diagnoses generated by the symptom checker was 26.8 (21.8) (range, 1-99). The primary diagnosis by the symptom checker was correct in 11 of 42 (26%; 95% CI, 12%-40%) cases. The correct diagnosis was included in the online symptom checker's top 3 diagnoses in 16 of 42 (38%; 95% CI, 25%-56%) cases. The correct diagnosis was not included in the symptom checker's list in 18 of 42 (43%; 95% CI, 32%-63%) cases. Triage urgency based on the top diagnosis was appropriate in 7 of 18 (39%; 95% CI, 14%-64%) emergent cases and 21 of 24 (88%; 95% CI, 73%-100%) nonemergent cases. Interuser variability for the correct diagnosis being in the top 3 listed was at least moderate (Cohen κ = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95).Conclusions and relevanceThe most popular online symptom checker may arrive at the correct clinical diagnosis for ophthalmic conditions, but a substantial proportion of diagnoses may not be captured. These findings suggest that further research to reflect the real-life application of internet diagnostic resources is required.

Project description:BackgroundConsumer-driven healthcare and an increasing emphasis on quality metrics have encouraged patient engagement in the rating of healthcare. As such, online physician rating websites have become mainstream and may play a potential role in future healthcare policy.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate online patient ratings for US sports medicine surgeons, determine predictors of positive ratings and analyze for inter-website scoring correlation.MethodsThe American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) member directory was sampled. Surgeon demographic and rating data were searched on three online physicians rating websites: HealthGrades.com (HG), RateMDs.com (RM) and Vitals.com (V). Written rating comments were categorized as relating to the following: surgeon competence, surgeon affability and process of care. Bivariate linear regression, Pearson correlation and multivariable analyses were used to determine factors associated with positive ratings.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-five sports medicine surgeons were included. Two hundred seventy-one (99%) had ratings on at least one of the three websites. Sports surgeons were rated highly across all three websites (mean >4.0/5); however, there was only a low to moderate degree of correlation among websites. On HG, female surgeons and surgeons in academia were more likely to receive higher overall ratings. Across all three websites, increased number of years in practice inversely correlated with ratings; this relationship neared significance for HG and was significant for RM. A surgeon's online presence or geographic location was not associated with higher ratings. In multivariable regression analysis for ratings on HG, female sex was the only significant predictor of higher ratings. Two thousand three hundred forty-one written comments were analyzed: perceived surgeon competence and communication influenced the direction of ratings for the top and bottom tier surgeons.ConclusionThere was a low degree of correlation among online websites for surgeon ratings. Female surgeons and those with fewer years in practice appear to have higher ratings on these websites; comment content analysis suggests that high and low ratings are influenced by perceived surgeon competence and affability.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fall accidents are a major cause of mortality among the elderly and the leading cause of traumatic brain injury. After a fall, many elderly people never completely recover and need help in coping with everyday life. Due to the increasing older population in the world, injuries, disabilities, and deaths caused by falls are a growing worldwide problem. Muscle weakness leads to greatly increased risk of falling, decreased quality of life, and decline in functional capacity. Muscle mass and muscle power decrease about 40% from age 20 to 80 years, and the level of testosterone decreases with age and leads to impaired muscle mass. In addition, 20% of men older than 60 years-and 50% older than 80 years-have low levels of testosterone. Treatments after a fall are significant financial burdens on health and social care, and it is important to find treatments that can enhance function in the elderly people. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to investigate whether testosterone and progressive resistance training alone or combined can improve muscle strength and reduce the risk of falls in older men. Additionally, we will examine whether such treatments can improve quality of life, functional capacity, including sexual function, and counteract depression. METHODS:This is a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in which frail older men with testosterone deficiency are treated with testosterone supplemental therapy and therapist-assisted progressive resistance training for 20 weeks, with the possibility to continue treatment for 1 year. Four study arms of 48 participants each are provided based on factorial assignment to testosterone supplemental therapy and progressive resistance training. The 4 groups are as follows: controls given placebo injections without physical exercise for 20 weeks, testosterone-alone group given testosterone injections without physical exercise for 20 weeks, training-alone group given placebo injections for 20 weeks combined with 16 weeks of progressive strength training, and combination group given testosterone injections for 20 weeks combined with 16 weeks of progressive strength training. Performance in the 30-second chair stand test to measure improvement of general strength, balance, and power in lower extremities is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints comprising tests of cognition, muscle strength, and quality of life are applied before and after the training. RESULTS:Funding was provided in October 2016. Results are expected to be available in 2020. Sample size was calculated to 152 participants divided into 4 equal-sized groups. Due to age, difficulty in transport, and the time-consuming intervention, up to 25% dropouts are expected; thus, we aim to include at least 192 participants. CONCLUSIONS:This investigation will evaluate the efficacy of testosterone supplemental therapy alone or combined with progressive resistance training. Additionally, improvements in quality of life and cognition are explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02873559; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02873559 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x0BhU2p3).

Dataset Information

Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements.

Publications

Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets