Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31968571›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2020

Circulating Ionized Magnesium: Comparisons with Circulating Total Magnesium and the Response to Magnesium Supplementation in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mary R Rooney, Kyle D Rudser, Alvaro Alonso, Lisa Harnack, Amy K Saenger, Pamela L Lutsey

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 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
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mary R RooneyDivision of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA, harna001@umn.edu (L.H.).ORCID 0000-0002-5607-4848
Kyle D RudserDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA, rudser@umn.edu.
Alvaro AlonsoDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA, alvaro.alonso@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2225-8323
Lisa HarnackDivision of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA, harna001@umn.edu (L.H.).
Amy K SaengerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Hennepin Healthcare, Minneapolis, MN 55415, USA, amy.saenger@hcmed.org.
Pamela L LutseyDivision of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA, harna001@umn.edu (L.H.).ORCID 0000-0002-1572-1340
University of Minnesota · USEmory University · USHennepin Healthcare Research Institute · US

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology &Prevention TrngT32HL007779 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI PAMELA L. Lutsey, JAMES S PANKOW · 1994 to 2026
$9.3M
Mentoring in patient-oriented atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular researchK24HL148521 · NHLBI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI ALONSO, ALVARO · 2019 to 2023
$593k
American Heart Association 16EIA26410001NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL148521NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007779NHLBI NIH HHS T32HL007779
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ionized Mg (iMg) is considered the biologically active fraction of circulating total Mg (tMg). It is possible that iMg may be a more physiologically relevant marker than tMg. Using data from a double-blind pilot randomized controlled trial, we tested (1) whether oral Mg supplementation will increase iMg concentrations compared with placebo and (2) the relationship between iMg and tMg at baseline. Additionally, we evaluated the agreement between iMg measured in fresh whole blood versus stored samples. A total of fifty-nine participants were randomized 1:1 to oral Mg supplementation (400 mg/day, Mg Oxide) or placebo for 10 weeks. Fasting blood samples were obtained at baseline and follow-up. The analysis used linear regression and an intent-to-treat approach. Participants were generally healthy, the mean age was 62, and 73% were female. The baseline iMg and tMg were modestly and positively associated (r = 0.50). The ratio of baseline iMg to tMg was 64%. The mean supplement effect on iMg was 0.03 mmol/L (95% CI:0.01, 0.05) for Mg supplementation versus placebo. The supplement effect on iMg was not statistically significantly different according to baseline iMg status (above/below median). Compared to fresh blood, iMg was consistently higher in refrigerated and frozen samples by 0.14 and 0.20 mmol/L, respectively. In this relatively healthy adult population, Mg supplementation over 10 weeks resulted in increased iMg concentrations. Whether iMg is a more appropriate measure of Mg status than tMg, and the public health or clinical utility of measuring iMg remains to be determined.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdministration, OralAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMagnesium OxideMaleMiddle AgedNutritional StatusPilot ProjectsTime FactorsMagnesium Oxideionized magnesiummagnesium supplementnutritional epidemiologyrandomized controlled trialtotal magnesium

Identifiers

PMID31968571
PMCPMC7019442
OpenAlexW2999824318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.