Abstract
This review discusses the implications, from a new researcher’s perspective, of variations in the design, dose and participant age group used and their subsequent effects on the cognitive performance and mood observed in studies investigating the effect of foods rich in phenolic compounds. In this context, ‘new researchers’ design and conduct new exploratory research on this topic, such as testing novel products for these properties. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have concluded that foods rich in phenolic compounds have an enhancement effect on cognition, providing a motive for exploring the benefits of different types of foods with such constituents; however, these benefits were inconsistent across the studies. This has prompted the present review to assess the literature to elucidate the potential causes of the variability in outcomes. One source of variation was inconsistency in the cognitive assessment tools used across studies. Another was participant age, where the positive effects were seen more in elderly populations than in a healthy young population with a high baseline performance. Also, the frequent absence of primary outcome identification and other indications of a less cautious approach to statistical analyses may have contributed to instances of type 1 errors. In conclusion, new researchers should use well-validated assessment tools, study populations with a modest baseline performance, and predefined appropriate statistical procedures to minimize irreproducible outcome variations.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, D.A.; writing—review and editing, supervision, K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by [King Abdulaziz University] grant number [KAU1692] and the APC was funded by [King Abdulaziz University].
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable, since this is a literature review.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).