The Effect of Magnesium Infusion on Rest Cramps: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rest cramps (also known as nocturnal leg cramps) are very common in a geriatric population. Oral magnesium supplements are marketed for prophylaxis of such cramps but clinical trials exploring the efficacy of oral magnesium conflict. A therapeutic trial of intravenous magnesium overcomes the limited oral bioavailability of magnesium and better assesses its therapeutic potential. METHODS: A double blind, placebo controlled randomized controlled trial was conducted on 46 community-dwelling older adult (69.3 ± 7.7 years) rest cramp sufferers to determine whether 5 consecutive days infusion of 20-mmol (5 g) magnesium sulfate would reduce the frequency of leg cramps per week in the 30 days immediately pre and post infusions. It was also determined whether the response to treatment varied with the extent to which infused magnesium was retained (as measured by 24-hour urinary magnesium excretion). RESULTS: The study population averaged 8.0 cramps per week at baseline. The mean change in number of cramps per week, magnesium versus placebo arms, was -2.4 versus -1.7, p = .51, 95% confidence interval of the difference -3.1 to 1.7. Magnesium retention did not correlate with treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium infusion did not reduce the frequency of leg cramps in a group of older adult rest cramp sufferers regardless of the extent to which infused magnesium was retained. Although oral magnesium is widely marketed to older adults for the prophylaxis of leg cramps, our data suggest that magnesium therapy is not indicated for the treatment of rest cramps in a geriatric population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".