TABLE 2.
Characteristics of included studies on the association between magnesium intake and CVD 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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) |
| Dai et al. 2013 (43) | China | 40–74 | M: 61,414, | 13 | M:800 | DMG | 81-item FFQ | Chinese food composition | 9 | NR | 232–347 | ≥320 vs. <251 | HR: 0.84 (0.58, 1.21) |
| F: 73,232 | F:1147 | 258–367 | HR: 1.35 (1.03, 1.77) | ||||||||||
| Guasch-Ferré et al. 2014 (15) | Spain | 55–80 | B: 7216 | 4.8 | 81 | DMG | 137-item FFQ | Spanish food composition | 8 | NR | 312–442 | >391 vs. <326 | HR: 0.53 (0.28, 0.99) |
| Kaluza et al. 2010 (21) | Swedish | 45–79 | M: 23,366 | 10 | 819 | DMG | 96-ietm FFQ | Swedish National Food Administration Database | 8 | NR | 387–523 | ≥481 vs. <426 | HR: 1.25 (0.96, 1.61) |
| 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) |
| Chen et al. 2019 (18) | US | >20 | B:27,725 | 6.1 | 724 | DMG | Food recall | US food composition | 7 | 294 | NR | >EAR vs. <EAR | RR: 0.73 (0.51, 1.03) |
| B:27,725 | 724 | TMG | 338 | NR | >EAR vs. <EAR | RR: 0.83 (0.63, 1.11) | |||||||
| B:27,725 | 701 | SMG | 147 | NR | user vs. nonuser | RR: 0.93 (0.75, 1.14) | |||||||
| Huang et al. 2015 (41) | Tiwan | 65–97 | B: 1400 | 8.7 | 124 | DMG | Food recall | Taiwanese food composition | 7 | 227 | 126–325 | ≥265 vs. <155 | HR: 1.24 (0.59, 2.6) |
| 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) |
| Mursu et al. 2011 (22) | US | 55–69 | F: 38,772 | 19 | 5721 | SMG | 127-item FFQ | USDA sources | 8 | NR | NR | User vs. nonuser | HR: 1.16 (1.01, 1.34) |
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 ESs are for the highest compared with lowest comparison.