Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32204500›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

The Effect of (Poly)phenol-Rich Interventions on Cognitive Functions and Neuroprotective Measures in Healthy Aging Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Achraf Ammar, Khaled Trabelsi, Patrick Müller, Bassem Bouaziz, Omar Boukhris, Jordan M Glenn, Nick Bott, Tarak Driss, Hamdi Chtourou, Notger Müller and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Achraf AmmarInstitute of Sport Sciences, Otto-von-Guericke University, 39104 Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0347-8053
Khaled TrabelsiUR15JS01: Education, Motricity, Sport and Health (EM2S), High Institute of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sfax, Sfax 3000, Tunisia.ORCID 0000-0003-2623-9557
Patrick MüllerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Bassem BouazizHigher Institute of Computer Science and Multimedia of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax 3000, Tunisia.
Omar BoukhrisUR15JS01: Education, Motricity, Sport and Health (EM2S), High Institute of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sfax, Sfax 3000, Tunisia.
Jordan M GlennExercise Science Research Center, Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2563-4291
Nick BottNeurotrack Technologies, 399 Bradford St, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5709-4261
Tarak DrissInterdisciplinary Laboratory in Neurosciences, Physiology and Psychology: Physical Activity, Health and Learning (LINP2-2APS), UFR STAPS, UPL, Paris Nanterre University, 92000 Nanterre, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6109-7393
Hamdi ChtourouPhysical Activity, Sport and Health, UR18JS01, National Observatory of Sport, Tunis 1003, Tunisia.ORCID 0000-0002-5482-9151
Notger MüllerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Anita HökelmannInstitute of Sport Sciences, Otto-von-Guericke University, 39104 Magdeburg, Germany.
University of Sfax · TNGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DENeurotrack Technologies (United States) · USOtto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg · DEUniversité Paris Nanterre · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAs the food industry is continually involved in the development of new attractive alternative therapeutic agents, the evaluation of the beneficial impact of (poly)phenols on cognitive and brain function during aging has gained increasing interest.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the acute and chronic effects of (poly)phenol-rich diet supplementation on cognitive function and brain health in aging adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to July 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Two researchers independently screened 4303 records, using the PICOS criteria: Participants were aging adults; Intervention was based on acute and/or chronic (poly)phenols-rich supplementation; Comparator was any comparator; Outcomes included cognitive function and neuroprotective measures; and Study design was RCTs. A third researcher was consulted when discrepancies arose. Fifteen high-quality (mean PEDro score = 8.8 ± 0.56) RCTs (total participants: 918 healthy older adults) were included in the final sample. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, employed treatment, characteristics of participants, outcomes, and the correspondent assessing methods were extracted. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Data Analysis and Results: A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates across studies. Effect size (ES) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Pooled results yielded a trivial ES (-0.2 to 0.03) for brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neuroinflammatory parameters and small (0.36) to moderate (0.82) ES for executive functions.

conclusionThis meta-analysis failed to provide evidence regarding the neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effect of (poly)phenols supplementation in aging adults. However, findings from individual studies, included in this systematic review, suggest polyphenol-rich supplementation may improve some cognitive and brain functions in older adults. The beneficial effect of polyphenols seems to depend on ingested dose and bioavailability. Results suggest at least an intermediate dose (≥500 mg), and intermediate (≈9%) to high (43%) bioavailability rates are needed to cross the brain blood barrier and to exert a significant effect on cognitive health.

Indexed as

braincognitionmeta-analysisneuroinflammationneuroplasticitypolyphenols

Identifiers

PMID32204500
PMCPMC7141326
OpenAlexW3010916240

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.