Skip to the main content

Long-term health and immunity

Zincand Common cold duration

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower common cold duration.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The numbers reported

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

-2.5-1.65-0.81

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

One source, 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.

  • Systematic review, 2012 · 17 studies pooled · 2,121 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Zinc for the treatment of the common cold: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    CMAJ. 2012;184(10):E551-61. doi:10.1503/cmaj.111990. PMID:22566526.

    Number reported
    -1.65
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -2.5 to -0.81
    Source’s own words
    days of cold symptoms, mean difference vs placebo
    Who was studied
    Adult and child
    Compared with
    placebo or no treatment
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    I2 = 95%
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: imprecision and inconsistency
    1. Starts at High
    2. Imprecision brought it down to Moderatethe interval excludes no effect but spans a 3-fold range of effect size, from trivial to largeReported in the abstract
    3. Inconsistency brought it down to Lowheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 95%)Reported in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    risk of bias and indirectness

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

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • Amount taken — 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 Zinc

Three of the nine things on our list for Zinc have no reading here yet:

  • Fetal heart-rate variability
  • Serum copper
  • 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

  • Zinc

    Five other questions read for it

  • Long-term health and immunity

    20 questions read under it

  • Common cold duration

    No other ingredients read against it

    Alphabetical, and by nothing else.

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.