ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2025
Vitamin-mineral supplements and cognition among adults aged 65 and older: multiple cross-sectional population-based studies.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMany people consume vitamin-mineral supplements (VMS), to prevent cognitive decline or enhance cognition. We assessed the association between VMS intake and cognition.
methodsData from three follow-ups of the population-based CoLaus|PsyColaus cohort. Participants aged ≥ 65 years were included and categorized as VMS consumers or non-consumers. Cognitive tests included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Stroop colour test, the CERAD praxis items, lexical and semantic fluency tasks, and the Grober and Buschke episodic memory test.
resultsThere were 925 (64.5% women), 836 (41.1%), and 516 (29.4%) participants from the first (2009-2013), second (2014-2018) and third (2019-2021) follow-ups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no significant differences were found between VMS non-consumers and consumers regarding almost all cognitive tests. The multivariable-adjusted mean ± SEM of MMSE for VMS non-consumers vs. consumers were 29.27 ± 0.06 vs. 29.28 ± 0.09, 29.21 ± 0.06 vs. 29.28 ± 0.07 and 29.32 ± 0.08 vs. 29.21 ± 0.09 for the first, second, and third follow-ups, all p > 0.05. The exceptions were Stroop C, where non-consumers had a statistically better but clinically irrelevant performance than consumers at the third follow-up: effect size 0.30 (0.01; 0.58) p = 0.042 and the Grober and Buschke test in the first follow-up, where VMS consumers scored better than non-consumers in free recall: 9.11 ± 0.15 vs. 8.55 ± 0.10 (p = 0.003), with opposite findings in cued recall: 5.99 ± 0.14 vs. 6.48 ± 0.09 (p = 0.004).
conclusionWe found no clinically significant association between VMS use and cognitive performance.
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.