ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials examining nutritional interventions in mild cognitive impairment.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nutritional strategies are increasingly recognized as critical interventions for preventing or delaying the progression of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to dementia. While the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard for evaluating healthcare interventions, nutrition-related trials in MCI populations are susceptible to specific methodological biases. Adequate reporting of these methodological domains is critical for assessing internal validity and reproducibility. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of English-language RCTs and systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to March 15, 2025, with an updated search in August 2025. Reporting quality was evaluated using a modified composite checklist comprising 37 items from the CONSORT 2010 Statement and selected candidate items proposed for the nutritional extension (draft recommendations). We calculated an overall adherence score and performed multivariable linear regression to identify study characteristics associated with reporting quality. Results: A total of 75 trials were included. The mean overall adherence score was 20.4 (SD 5.2). While reporting of eligibility criteria ( Conclusion: Reporting quality in nutritional trials for MCI remains suboptimal, particularly in domains essential for interpreting trial validity, such as randomization, blinding, and adherence verification. The frequent omission of these details limits the ability to distinguish intervention effects from placebo responses or poor compliance. Rigorous adherence to comprehensive reporting standards, including the forthcoming CONSORT extension for nutrition, is necessary to improve the reliability and reproducibility of evidence in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.