↓ Skip to main content

Flavonoids and cognitive function: a review of human randomized controlled trial studies and recommendations for future studies

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 386)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
Flavonoids and cognitive function: a review of human randomized controlled trial studies and recommendations for future studies
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, August 2009
DOI 10.1007/s12263-009-0135-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna L. Macready, Orla B. Kennedy, Judi A. Ellis, Claire M. Williams, Jeremy P. E. Spencer, Laurie T. Butler

Abstract

Evidence in support of the neuroprotective effects of flavonoids has increased significantly in recent years, although to date much of this evidence has emerged from animal rather than human studies. Nonetheless, with a view to making recommendations for future good practice, we review 15 existing human dietary intervention studies that have examined the effects of particular types of flavonoid on cognitive performance. The studies employed a total of 55 different cognitive tests covering a broad range of cognitive domains. Most studies incorporated at least one measure of executive function/working memory, with nine reporting significant improvements in performance as a function of flavonoid supplementation compared to a control group. However, some domains were overlooked completely (e.g. implicit memory, prospective memory), and for the most part there was little consistency in terms of the particular cognitive tests used making across study comparisons difficult. Furthermore, there was some confusion concerning what aspects of cognitive function particular tests were actually measuring. Overall, while initial results are encouraging, future studies need to pay careful attention when selecting cognitive measures, especially in terms of ensuring that tasks are actually sensitive enough to detect treatment effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 210 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 19%
Student > Bachelor 36 17%
Student > Master 32 15%
Researcher 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 45 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 14%
Psychology 26 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 7%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 47 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#753,340
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#13
of 386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,025
of 111,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.