The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Magnesium intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta‐analysis
Abstract
Abstract.: Objective. To assess the association between magnesium intake and risk of type 2 diabetes. Design. Meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies. Data Sources. We retrieved studies published in any language by systematically searching MEDLINE from 1966 to February 2007 and by manually examining the references of the original articles. Study Selection. We included prospective cohort studies reporting relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for the association between magnesium intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes. Results. The seven identified cohort studies of magnesium intake [from foods only (n = 4) or from foods and supplements combined (n = 3)] and incidence of type 2 diabetes included 286 668 participants and 10 912 cases. All but one study found an inverse relation between magnesium intake and risk of type 2 diabetes, and in four studies the association was statistically significant. The overall relative risk for a 100 mg day−1 increase in magnesium intake was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79–0.92). Results were similar for intake of dietary magnesium (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.95) and total magnesium (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77–0.89). There was no evidence of publication bias (P = 0.99). Conclusions. Magnesium intake was inversely associated with incidence of type 2 diabetes. This finding suggests that increased consumption of magnesium‐rich foods such as whole grains, beans, nuts, and green leafy vegetables may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Methods for Trend Estimation from Summarized Dose-Response Data, with Applications to Meta-Analysis
Greenland, S., & Longnecker, M. P. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116237 · Cited by 2,353
Cited by
Magnesium in Prevention and Therapy
Gröber, U., Schmidt, J., & Kisters, K. (2015) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu7095388 · Cited by 1,061
Carter, P., Gray, L. J., Troughton, J., Khunti, K., & Davies, M. J. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c4229 · Cited by 728
Risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus: An exposure-wide umbrella review of meta-analyses
Bellou, V., Belbasis, L., Tzoulaki, I., & Evangelou, E. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194127 · Cited by 713
Li, M., Fan, Y., Zhang, X., Hou, W., & Tang, Z. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005497 · Cited by 417
Bhatti, G. K., Reddy, A. P., Reddy, P. H., & Bhatti, J. S. (2020) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00369 · Cited by 145
Metadata
- Authors
- Larsson, S. C., & Wolk, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-03
- Volume
- 262
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-214
- ISSN
- 0954-6820 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2796
- OpenAlex
- W2032425323
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.