TABLE 1.
Characteristics of included studies on the association between magnesium intake and all-cause mortality in adults aged >18 y1
| Author, y (ref) | Country | Age (y) | Sample size (n) | Follow-up2 (y) | Cases (n) | Exposure | Exposure assessment | FCT used | NOS score | MG mean (mg/d) | MG range (mg/d) | MG intake comparison (mg/d) | ES (95% CI)3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dai et al. 2013 (43) | China | 40–74 | M: 61,414, | 13 | M: 3806, | DMG | 81-item FFQ | Chinese food composition | 9 | NR | 232–347 | ≥320 vs. <251 | HR: 0.87 (0.71, 1.07) |
| F: 73,232 | F:2418 | 258–367 | HR: 1.09 (0.94, 1.27) | ||||||||||
| Guasch-Ferré et al. 2014 (15) | Spain | 55–80 | Both:7216 | 4.8 | 323 | DMG | 137-item FFQ | Spanish food composition | 8 | NR | 312–442 | >391 vs. <326 | HR: 0.63 (0.46, 0.86) |
| Kaluza et al. 2010 (21) | Swedish | 45–79 | M: 23,366 | 10 | 2358 | DMG | 96-item FFQ | Swedish National Food Administration Database | 8 | NR | 387–523 | ≥481 vs. <426 | HR: 1.06 (0.91, 1.24) |
| Tao et al. 2016 (40) | US | 35–79 | F: 1170 | 7.3 | 170 | DMG | 121-item FFQ | US food composition | 7 | 241 | 156–306 | ≥268 vs. <193 | HR: 0.5 (0.28, 0.9) |
| TMG | 295 | 185–381 | ≥332 vs. <234 | HR: 0.58 (0.31, 1.08) | |||||||||
| Chen et al. 2019 (18) | US | >20 | B:27,725 | 6.1 | 2845 | DMG | Food recall | US food composition | 7 | 294 | NR | >EAR vs. <EAR | RR: 0.78 (0.65, 0.93) |
| B:27,725 | 3613 | TMG | 338 | NR | >EAR vs. <EAR | RR: 0.85 (0.74, 0.98) | |||||||
| B:27,725 | 3613 | SMG | 147 | NR | User vs. nonuser | RR: 0.97 (0.86, 1.09) | |||||||
| Huang et al. 2015 (41) | Tiwan | 65–97 | Both: 1400 | 8.7 | 475 | DMG | Food recall | Taiwanese food composition | 7 | 227 | 126–325 | ≥265 vs. <155 | HR: 1.05 (0.74, 1.49) |
| Levitan et al. 2013 (23) | US | 50–79 | F: 3340 | 4.6 | 1433 | DMG | 122-item FFQ | Minnesota Nutrition Data System | 6 | 247 | 187–309 | >285 vs. <207 | HR: 0.84 (0.63, 1.12) |
| TMG | NR | 199–408 | >408 vs. <199 | HR: 1.07 (0.88, 1.3) | |||||||||
| Wesselink et al. 2020 (26) | Netherlands | 61.7–72.9 | B: 1407 | 4.7 | 174 | DMG | 204-item FFQ | Dutch food composition | 6 | 318 | 242–432 | >400 vs. <282 | HR: 0.59 (0.29, 1.2) |
| B: 1169 | 191 | TMG | NR | 255–469 | >431 vs. <286 | HR: 0.65 (0.35, 1.21) | |||||||
| Saquib et al. 2011 (45) | US | 18–70 | F: 3081 | 9 | 412 | TMG | Food recall | Minnesota Nutrition Data System | 6 | NR | NR | Above RDA vs. below RDA | HR: 0.98 (0.66, 1.45) |
| Mursu et al. 2011 (22) | US | 55–69 | F: 38,772 | 19 | 15,594 | SMG | 127-item FFQ | USDA sources | 8 | NR | NR | User vs. nonuser | HR: 1.08 (1.01, 1.15) |
| Chiuve et al. 2011 (46) | US | 30–55 | F: 88,375 | 26 | 505 | DMG | FFQ | USDA sources | 8 | 305 | 235–383 | >345 vs. <261 | RR: 0.66 (0.46, 0.95) |
| Zhang et al. 2012 (9) | Japan | 40–79 | M: 23,083 | 14.7 | 1343 | DMG | 33-item FFQ | Japan food tables | 8 | NR | 173–294 | >257 vs. <190 | HR: 1.02 (0.85, 1.22) |
| F: 35,533 | 1347 | 174–274 | >241 vs. <190 | HR: 1.26 (0.9, 1.75) | |||||||||
| Chiuve et al. 2013 (44) | US | 30–55 | F: 86,323 | 28 | 1103 | DMG | FFQ | USDA sources | 8 | NR | 231–360 | >342 vs. <246 | RR: 0.64 (0.46, 0.87) |
| Li et al. 2020 (16) | US | 50–79 | F:153,569 | 10.5 | 3,277 | DMG | 122-item FFQ | Minnesota Nutrition Data System | 8 | 244 | 189–330 | >289 vs. <197 | HR: 0.84 (0.78, 0.9) |
| Talaei et al. 2019 (27) | China | 45–74 | B: 57,078 | 17.2 | 4871 | DMG | 165-item FFQ | Singapore Food Composition Database | 8 | NR | 205–290 | 290 vs. 205 | HR: 1.06 (0.94, 1.19) |
| Song et al. 2005 (19) | US | 39–89 | F: 35,601 | 10 | 120 | TMG | 131-item FFQ | USDA sources | 8 | NR | 255–433 | >409 vs. <268 | RR: 1.32 (0.71, 2.47) |
| Li et al. 2011 (20) | German | 35–64 | B: 24,323 | 11 | 513 | DMG | 158-item FFQ | German Dietary Nutrient Database | 8 | NR | 261–381 | >354 vs. <280 | HR: 1.04 (0.79, 1.36) |
| Zhong et al. 2020 (17) | US | 55–74 | B:104,025 | 11.5 | 100 | DMG | 137-item FFQ | USDA sources | 8 | NR | 205–408 | >358 vs. <256 | HR: 0.34 (0.18, 0.66) |
| B:104,025 | 100 | TMG | 301–413 | >413 vs. <301 | HR: 0.37 (0.19, 0.71) | ||||||||
| SMG | NR | HR: 1.12 (0.76, 1.67) | |||||||||||
| Wu et al. 2017 (25) | US | 20–74 | B: 13,504 | 14.6 | NR | TMG | Food recall | USDA sources | 8 | 321 | 309–332 | Per every 100-mg increase | HR: 0.51 (0.26, 1.01) |
1
B, both male and female; DMG, dietary magnesium; EAR, estimated average requirement; ES, effect size; F, female; FCT, food composition table; M, male; MG, magnesium; NOS, Newcastle Ottawa Scale; NR, not reported; SMG, supplemental magnesium; TMG, total magnesium; ref, reference.
2
Number of years that individuals were followed in the prospective cohort studies.
3
These effect sizes are for the highest compared with lowest comparison.