ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2025
Water intake, hydration status and cognitive functions in older adults - a pilot study.
Article in European journal of nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the relationship between the hydration status and cognitive functioning of older adults. The novelty of the study was the simultaneous use of several indicators of hydration status, including plasma and urine osmolality, specific gravity and urine color, as well as the assessment of total body water content from body composition measurements, together with comprehensive cognitive assessment.
methodsA cross-sectional pilot study included 35 participants aged ≥ 60 years. Water intake was assessed using the 3-day food record method. Hydration status was assessed by plasma osmolality (Posm), urine osmolality (Uosm), specific gravity (USG) and color (UC), extracellular water (ECW) and percentage of total body water (%TBW). Cognitive functions were assessed using a set of standardized neuropsychological tests including: two verbal tests (Digit Span, DS and Vocabulary, VT) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), Verbal Fluency Test (VFT), Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT) and Global Cognitive Function (GCF).
resultsThe %TBW was the most strongly related to cognitive processes of all the measures of hydration status. %TBW was significantly related to the performance on memory/learning based on CVLT (r = -0.55, p = 0.002), after a short delay (r = -0.59, p = 0.001) and long delay (r = -0.57, p = 0.001) and GCF (r = -0.43, p = 0.019). Marked correlations were also present between %TBW and psychomotor speed using the GPT (r = 0.41, p = 0.028). Moreover, significant relationships were obtained in cluster analyses. Cluster 2 (lower hydration status) was characterized by lower water intake and AI% (% of Adequate Intake), higher Uosm, USG, UC, ECW and %TBC than cluster 1. At the same time, it had significantly higher scores for language ability: VT (p = 0.041) and VFT (p = 0.041).
conclusionSignificant relationships between some indicators of hydration status and selected cognitive domains were observed. This pilot study complements previous research on the relationship between hydration status and cognitive function in older adults, emphasizing that even small changes in hydration status assessment parameters can affect cognitive outcomes. In healthy, free-living older adults without dehydration assessed by plasma osmolality, other parameters of hydration status, such as water intake and urine parameters, influence language functions, suggesting the need to assess multiple markers simultaneously. The long-term effect of low water intake should be evaluated in a larger study group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.