Skip to main content
Skip to content
MelatoninRCT2007

Efficacy of prolonged release melatonin in insomnia patients aged 55–80 years: quality of sleep and next-day alertness outcomes

Wade AG, Ford I, Crawford G, et al. · Current Medical Research and Opinion
What this study found

3-week RCT in older insomnia patients (n=354) found prolonged-release melatonin 2mg improved sleep quality and morning alertness, supporting lower doses (1–3mg) over the often-oversold 5–10mg.

The findings of a neurological evaluation in 85 patients with confirmed, acute, dengue virus infection are described. Signs of central nervous system involvement were present in 18 patients (21.2%). The most frequent neurological symptom was mental confusion. The frequency of neurological involvement did not differ between patients with primary and secondary dengue infection, and the prevalence of central nervous system involvement in dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever also did not differ significantly. The presence of CNS involvement did not influence the prognosis of dengue infection. Dengue viral CSF RNA was found in 7 of 13 patients submitted to a spinal tap, the CSF viral load being less than 1000 copies/ml. PCR was negative in serum samples obtained from three patients on the same day as the CSF samples, suggesting that the dengue virus actively enters the CNS and that the presence of the virus in the CNS does not result from passive crossing of the blood-brain barrier.

Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.

Original paper
Open on PubMed
Read the paper ↗
PMID: 17959198DOI: 10.1185/030079907X233098

How to read a study like this

The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.

Who was studied, and do you resemble them?

Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.

What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?

A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.

How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.

'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.

Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?

Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.

Has anyone else replicated this?

Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.

Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?

Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.

Not medical advice. This breakdown is for educational purposes. Nothing here constitutes an allegation of fraud or misconduct by any researcher or sponsor. Reasonable scientists can grade the same paper differently; we show our rubric and link every claim to the original study.