4.4 Review

Cognitive tests used in chronic adult human randomised controlled trial micronutrient and phytochemical intervention studies

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH REVIEWS
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 200-229

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954422410000119

关键词

Cognitive tests; Micronutrients; Phytochemicals; Adult randomised controlled trials

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F008953/1]
  2. BBSRC [BB/E023185/1, BB/G005702/1, BB/C518222/1]
  3. Medical Research Council [G0400278/NI02]
  4. Food Standards Agency (FSA) [N02039]
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C518222/1, BB/G005702/1, BB/E023185/1, BB/F008953/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. BBSRC [BB/E023185/1, BB/G005702/1, BB/F008953/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years there has been a rapid growth of interest in exploring the relationship between nutritional therapies and the maintenance of cognitive function in adulthood. Emerging evidence reveals an increasingly complex picture with respect to the benefits of various food constituents on learning, memory and psychomotor function in adults. However, to date, there has been little consensus in human studies on the range of cognitive domains to be tested or the particular tests to be employed. To illustrate the potential difficulties that this poses, we conducted a systematic review of existing human adult randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies that have investigated the effects of 24d to 36 months of supplementation with flavonoids and micronutrients on cognitive performance. There were thirty-nine studies employing a total of 121 different cognitive tasks that met the criteria for inclusion. Results showed that less than half of these studies reported positive effects of treatment, with some important cognitive domains either under-represented or not explored at all. Although there was some evidence of sensitivity to nutritional supplementation in a number of domains (for example, executive function, spatial working memory), interpretation is currently difficult given the prevailing 'scattergun approach' for selecting cognitive tests. Specifically, the practice means that it is often difficult to distinguish between a boundary condition for a particular nutrient and a lack of task sensitivity. We argue that for significant future progress to be made, researchers need to pay much closer attention to existing human RCT and animal data, as well as to more basic issues surrounding task sensitivity, statistical power and type I error.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据