Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-SUP-27 standard review
Multivitamins and memory
Long-term multivitamin supplementation and cognitive function in men: a randomized trial.
Overview
Grodstein F et al.. Ann Intern Med 2013 · PMID 24490265 · DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00006
No benefit for cognition.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Cognition.
- How was the study done?
RCT.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
5,947.
- What was actually found?
Null.
- How large was the observed effect?
−0.01 SU.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No brain benefit.
- What are the study's limitations?
Well-nourished.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Grodstein F, O'Brien J, Kang JH, Dushkes R, Cook NR, Okereke O, Manson JE, Glynn RJ, Buring JE, Gaziano M, Sesso HD
- Journal
- Ann Intern Med
- Year
- 2013
- Identifier
- PMID 24490265 DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00006 · PMC3858850
- 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; grants: NCI NIH HHS, NHLBI NIH HHS, NIA NIH HHS
2. Research question
Long-term multivitamin and cognition
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial – Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (PHS II cognitive substudy)
- Population
Male physicians ≥65
- Country
USA
- Period
1997/1998–2011
- Sample size
5,947
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
see abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Daily multivitamin
- Comparator
Placebo
- Endpoints
Global cognitive composite; verbal memory
- Statistical methods
Mean differences
5. Actual results
- Results
Global composite difference −0.01 SU (−0.04 to 0.02); verbal memory −0.005 SU.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
No cognitive benefit.
6. Strengths
- Long RCT
7. Weaknesses
- Well-nourished; dose low
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- RoB 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- low
- Rationale
Simplified RoB 2.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
See results.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High: biology and trial populations comparable to European adults.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Null.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | high |
| Risk of bias | low |
| Precision of results | high |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | correctly reported |
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
Listed in the archive bibliography of the oral-supplements rule without its own interpretation; used implicitly to support the rule summary that supplements 'failed or caused harm' in large trials.
- A. What was actually studied?
Long-term multivitamin and cognition
- B. What did the authors find?
Global composite difference −0.01 SU (−0.04 to 0.02); verbal memory −0.005 SU.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
No cognitive benefit.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports 'failed'.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Yes.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- correctly reported