1. In the study, it is clearly mentioned that subjects who were included in the study were "school children of 7-12 years of age in Coimbatore, India" [2]. But it seems that results are generalized to all age group children in advertisement. In conclusion section authors mentioned that "Encouraging findings from the present study demonstrate the beneficial effect of health drink on growth in children of 7-12 years" so it seems that authors were very clear about the specific population of the study and generalizability of results to specific population. But in the advertisement this fact was not shown and results were generalized to all children, which is methodological wrong and unethical.

2. In the "materials and methods" section it is mentioned that children who were recruited in this study were from "middle and low income families". In the results section it is mentioned that "more importantly, it revealed sub-optimal food intake pattern by children in all three groups". Therefore results of this study can not be generalized to children of high socioeconomic class families and children whose food intake is optimal. But the advertisement is generalized to all children irrespective of there socioeconomic class and nutritional status.

3. There were 58 dropouts from the study and they were not included in the final analysis. Reasons for there dropouts were not mentioned in the study. Characteristics of these subjects were not compared to the subjects who remained in the study. Intention to treat principle was not followed. This may insert bias in the observed results. Ignoring the subjects who have withdrawn from study usually introduces bias in the favor of the intervention [3].

4. Randomization process is not explained in detail. In ‘materials and methods’ section it is mentioned that "schools were randomly assigned to two treatment groups". This statement is not sufficient to understand the randomization process.

5. This study was an open label study. No blinding was done (or not reported in the study). In an unblinded study, there are all chances of bias in the favor of treatment. This issue becomes more important as the study is financially supported by the manufacturers (Heinz India Pvt Ltd). Though authors did not report conflict of interest or source of support in the published study. The information regarding this source of support is taken from authors profile available on internet [4].

6. In the advertisement on company website it is mentioned that "Give your child the power of complan thrice a day and see him/her grow twice as fast". In the study Complan was given twice a day and in the advertisement thrice a day is mentioned, which is not supported by this study [2].