Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

1.5 grams to 3 grams per day of oral sodium bicarbonate was not associated with improvements in physical function and did not produce any health benefits.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Miles D Witham 1,2,*, Margaret Band 3, Huey Chong 4, Peter T Donnan 5, Geeta Hampson 6, May Khei Hu 7, Roberta Littleford 8, Edmund Lamb 9, Philip A Kalra 10, Gwen Kennedy 11, Paul McNamee 4, Deirdre Plews 3, Petra Rauchhaus 3, Roy L Soiza 12, Deepa Sumukadas 13, Graham Warwick 14, Alison Avenell 15

1 AGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle University and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation, Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
3 Tayside Clinical Trials Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
4 Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
5 Division of Population Health and Genomics, Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
6 Department of Clinical Chemistry and Metabolic Medicine, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
7 NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
8 University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
9 East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Canterbury, UK
10 Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
11 The Immunoassay Biomarker Core Laboratory, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
12 Ageing Clinical and Experimental Research, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
13 Department of Medicine for the Elderly, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
14 John Walls Renal Unit, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
15 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
* Corresponding author Email: Miles.Witham@newcastle.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions