Vitamin and mineral levels
Zincand Serum zinc
Only one source here so far, and it measured higher serum zinc.
How sure anyone can be
Very low certainty, level 1 of 4Any estimate here is very uncertain.
The numbers reported
- 6 percent change
- % higher serum/plasma zinc per doubling of zinc intake
None of these sources gave a likely range — the band the real answer probably sits in — so how precise these numbers are is still an open question here.
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
Very low certainty, level 1 of 4The relationship between zinc intake and serum/plasma zinc concentration in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis by the EURRECA Network.
Br J Nutr. 2012;108(11):1962-71. doi:10.1017/S0007114512004382. PMID:23244547.
- Number reported
- 6 percent change
- Which way it went
- Higher
- Likely range
- Not in the abstract
- Source’s own words
- % higher serum/plasma zinc per doubling of zinc intake
- Who was studied
- Adult
- Compared with
- lower zinc intake (dose-response regression, not a fixed comparator arm)
- Amount taken
- Recorded detail — doubling of habitual or supplemental zinc intake
- For how long
- Not in the abstract
- Disagreement between studies
- I2 = 84.5%
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency
- Starts at High
- Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
- Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
- Inconsistency brought it down to Very lowheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 84.5%)Reported in the abstract
- 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.
What is still missing from these readings
- One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
- One do not say how many people took part.
- 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
Vitamin and mineral levels
15 questions read under it
Serum zinc
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.