Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most of the randomized placebo-controlled trials that have examined the clinical effects of multivitamin-mineral supplements on infection in the elderly have shown no significant effect. The exceptions are three such trials, all usin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Roberts Seth, Sternberg Saul
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2006-11-01
Series:Nutrition Journal
Online Access:http://www.nutritionj.com/content/5/1/30
id doaj-c121745ff404440a8298f1d7834a3fdc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c121745ff404440a8298f1d7834a3fdc2020-11-25T00:38:28ZengBMCNutrition Journal1475-28912006-11-01513010.1186/1475-2891-5-30Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?Roberts SethSternberg Saul<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most of the randomized placebo-controlled trials that have examined the clinical effects of multivitamin-mineral supplements on infection in the elderly have shown no significant effect. The exceptions are three such trials, all using a supplement with the same composition, and all claiming dramatic benefits: a frequently cited study published in 1992, which reported a 50% reduction in the number of days of infection (NDI), and two 2002 replication studies. Questions have been raised about the 1992 report; a second report in 2001 based on the same trial, but describing effects of the supplement on cognitive functions, has been retracted by <it>Nutrition</it>. The primary purpose of the present paper is to evaluate the claims about the effects of supplements on NDI in the two replication reports.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Examination of internal consistency (outcomes of statistical tests versus reported data); comparison of variability of NDI across individuals in these two reports with variability in other trials; estimation of the probability of achieving the reported close agreement with the original finding.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The standard deviations of NDI and levels of statistical significance reported are profoundly inconsistent. The reported standard deviations of NDI are consistently below what other studies have found. The reported percent reductions in NDI agree too closely with the original study.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The claims of reduced NDI in the two replication reports should be questioned, which also adds to concerns about the 1992 study. It follows that there is currently no trustworthy evidence from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that favors the use of vitamin-mineral supplements to reduce infection in the elderly.</p> http://www.nutritionj.com/content/5/1/30
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Roberts Seth
Sternberg Saul
spellingShingle Roberts Seth
Sternberg Saul
Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
Nutrition Journal
author_facet Roberts Seth
Sternberg Saul
author_sort Roberts Seth
title Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
title_short Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
title_full Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
title_fullStr Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
title_full_unstemmed Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
title_sort nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: why do the findings conflict?
publisher BMC
series Nutrition Journal
issn 1475-2891
publishDate 2006-11-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most of the randomized placebo-controlled trials that have examined the clinical effects of multivitamin-mineral supplements on infection in the elderly have shown no significant effect. The exceptions are three such trials, all using a supplement with the same composition, and all claiming dramatic benefits: a frequently cited study published in 1992, which reported a 50% reduction in the number of days of infection (NDI), and two 2002 replication studies. Questions have been raised about the 1992 report; a second report in 2001 based on the same trial, but describing effects of the supplement on cognitive functions, has been retracted by <it>Nutrition</it>. The primary purpose of the present paper is to evaluate the claims about the effects of supplements on NDI in the two replication reports.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Examination of internal consistency (outcomes of statistical tests versus reported data); comparison of variability of NDI across individuals in these two reports with variability in other trials; estimation of the probability of achieving the reported close agreement with the original finding.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The standard deviations of NDI and levels of statistical significance reported are profoundly inconsistent. The reported standard deviations of NDI are consistently below what other studies have found. The reported percent reductions in NDI agree too closely with the original study.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The claims of reduced NDI in the two replication reports should be questioned, which also adds to concerns about the 1992 study. It follows that there is currently no trustworthy evidence from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that favors the use of vitamin-mineral supplements to reduce infection in the elderly.</p>
url http://www.nutritionj.com/content/5/1/30
work_keys_str_mv AT robertsseth nutritionalsupplementsandinfectionintheelderlywhydothefindingsconflict
AT sternbergsaul nutritionalsupplementsandinfectionintheelderlywhydothefindingsconflict
_version_ 1725297468889890816