Fig 1 - uploaded by Jason Matthew-Lewis Miller
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Analysis of adherence to AREDS2 formula of products resulting from Google Shopping, Amazon, and pooled searches. B Cost analysis of adherent versus non-adherent formulas
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... total of 120 search results were analyzed (Fig. 1A), and 30.8% (37/120) of the products did not adhere to the AREDS2 formula. Compared to the AREDS2 formula, 14.2% (17/120) were missing at least one ingredient, 13.3% (16/120) contained less of at least one ingredient, 17.5% (21/120) contained more of at least one ingredient, and 15.8% (19/120) contained at least one extra ingredient ...
Context 2
... and 15.8% (19/120) contained at least one extra ingredient when it was not advertised as such on the bottle. The AREDS1 rather than AREDS2 formula was followed in 5.8% of products (7/120). Of note, the products that deviated from the AREDS2 formulation were 26.0% more expensive than those that complied ($0.63 vs. $0.50 per day, p = 0.0027) (Fig. ...
Context 3
... total of 120 search results were analyzed (Fig. 1A), and 30.8% (37/120) of the products did not adhere to the AREDS2 formula. Compared to the AREDS2 formula, 14.2% (17/120) were missing at least one ingredient, 13.3% (16/120) contained less of at least one ingredient, 17.5% (21/120) contained more of at least one ingredient, and 15.8% (19/120) contained at least one extra ingredient ...
Context 4
... and 15.8% (19/120) contained at least one extra ingredient when it was not advertised as such on the bottle. The AREDS1 rather than AREDS2 formula was followed in 5.8% of products (7/120). Of note, the products that deviated from the AREDS2 formulation were 26.0% more expensive than those that complied ($0.63 vs. $0.50 per day, p = 0.0027) (Fig. ...
