Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key study A-SUP-03 in-depth review
High-dose vitamin E and mortality
Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality.
Overview
Miller ER et al.. Ann Intern Med 2005 · PMID 15537682 · DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00110
In high-dose trials, 39 more deaths per 10,000 people with vitamin E.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Vitamin E and death.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
135,967.
- What was actually found?
Small increase at high dose.
- How large was the observed effect?
+39/10,000.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid high-dose vitamin E.
- What are the study's limitations?
Sick populations.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effect in healthy adults.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Miller ER, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LJ, Guallar E
- Journal
- Ann Intern Med
- Year
- 2005
- Identifier
- PMID 15537682 DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00110
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Dose-response relation between vitamin E and total mortality
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Dose-response meta-analysis of RCTs of vitamin E
- Population
135,967 participants in 19 trials
- Country
Multinational
- Period
1966–Aug 2004
- Sample size
19 trials
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
see abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Vitamin E 16.5–2000 IU/d (alone or combined)
- Comparator
Control
- Endpoints
All-cause mortality
- Statistical methods
Pooled risk difference; dose-response
5. Actual results
- Results
High-dose (≥400 IU/d) pooled risk difference +39/10,000 (3–74), P=0.035; low-dose −16/10,000 (n.s.); increased risk >150 IU/d.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
High-dosage (≥400 IU/d) vitamin E may increase all-cause mortality and should be avoided.
6. Strengths
- RCT data
- Dose-response
7. Weaknesses
- High-dose trials small, in chronically ill patients (authors' limitation)
- Generalisability to healthy adults uncertain
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Authors state limits on generalisability.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
See results.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
USPSTF 2022 review (I-SUP-08): vitamin E OR 1.02 for mortality.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High: biology and trial populations comparable to European adults.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Signal of harm; uncertain for healthy people.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | inconsistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | essentially correct but incomplete |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
High-dose vitamin E (≥400 IU/day) increased all-cause mortality by 39 per 10,000 persons across 19 trials.
- A. What was actually studied?
Vitamin E dose vs mortality.
- B. What did the authors find?
+39/10,000 in high-dose trials.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
May increase mortality; avoid.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Used as warning of harm.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Essentially correct; omits authors' caveat that high-dose trials were small and in chronically ill people.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- essentially correct but incomplete