Evidence Hub

The effect of long-term magnesium intake on inflammatory markers in patients with metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Weina Wang, Jiayong Wang, Yu-Feng Yang, Yan Shi

Frontiers in Nutrition, 2025

444 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background Prior randomized controlled trials (RCTs) offer inconsistent evidence on extended magnesium supplementation’s impact on inflammatory markers within metabolic syndrome cases. Methods We conducted a systematic search in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus, and the present meta-analysis included eight RCTs involving 444 participants. This meta-analysis adhered to PICOTS criteria and specifically evaluated the effect of oral magnesium supplementation compared to placebo on serum inflammatory markers. Only randomized controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 2 months were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, with results expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results Compared with placebo, magnesium intake notably lowered C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in serum (SMD = −0.327; 95% CI: −0.602 to −0.053; p = 0.048). Subgroup analyses revealed particularly notable improvements in serum CRP levels with oral magnesium supplementation under the following conditions: a duration of 12 weeks and 16 weeks; female sex; and administration in tablet form or capsule form. However, in other cases, this effect became non-significant (p > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses conducted by sequentially excluding individual studies or removing all studies with a high risk of bias showed no substantial impact on the results. No significant publication…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 444 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free