Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Long-term health and immunity

Magnesiumand All-cause mortality

Both sources here measured lower all-cause mortality.

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

0.790.87 risk ratio0.97

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

Two sources, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Cohort study, 2021

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Total, Dietary, and Supplemental Magnesium Intakes and Risk of All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.

    Adv Nutr. 2021;12(4):1196-1210. doi:10.1093/advances/nmab001. PMID:33684200.

    Number reported
    0.87 risk ratio
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    0.79 to 0.97
    Source’s own words
    pooled effect size for all-cause mortality, highest versus lowest dietary magnesium intake (not the per-100 mg/d increment)
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    lower dietary magnesium intake (highest versus lowest category)
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    I2 = 70.7% for all-cause mortality
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at Low, 3 steps down: risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency
    1. Starts at Low
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision — already at Very low, the lowest rungthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. Inconsistency — already at Very low, the lowest rungheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 70.7%)Reported in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Cohort study, 2016 · 40 studies pooled

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Dietary magnesium intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

    BMC Med. 2016;14(1):210. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0742-z. PMID:27927203.

    Number reported
    0.9 risk ratio
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    0.81 to 0.99
    Source’s own words
    relative risk of all-cause mortality per 100 mg/day increment in dietary magnesium
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    lower dietary magnesium intake (per 100 mg/day increment)
    Amount taken
    100 mg/d increment in dietary magnesium intake (upper bound: Not in the abstract)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at Low, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at Low
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision — already at Very low, the lowest rungthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Very low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 40 studies it pooled

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • Two do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Magnesium

11 of the 21 things on our list for Magnesium have no reading here yet:

  • Atrial fibrillation incidence
  • Bone mineral density
  • Cognitive performance
  • Depression
  • Fasting insulin
  • Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)
  • Hemoglobin A1c
  • Insomnia Severity Index
  • Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)
  • Sleep efficiency
  • Total testosterone

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.