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

Original publication

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

C-SUP-03.

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
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultslow
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceinconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
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