Othercited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-SUP-28 standard review
Editorial against supplements
Enough is enough: Stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements.
Overview
Guallar E et al.. Ann Intern Med 2013 · PMID 24490268 · DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00011
Opinion; not read.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: very low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Opinion.
- How was the study done?
Editorial.
- What are the study's limitations?
Opinion.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Consistent title.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Evidence.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Guallar E, Stranges S, Mulrow C, Appel LJ, Miller ER
- Journal
- Ann Intern Med
- Year
- 2013
- Identifier
- PMID 24490268 DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00011
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
PubMed lists: ErratumIn (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Jan 21;160(2):143)
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Opinion on vitamin and mineral supplements
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Other – Editorial (no abstract in PubMed)
- Period
2013
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
see abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
5. Actual results
- Results
No abstract; editorial text not read in this review.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
Not read (title: 'Enough is enough: stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements').
6. Strengths
7. Weaknesses
- Opinion, not data
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Editorial.
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
Opinion piece.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | very low |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not verifiable |
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?
Opinion on vitamin and mineral supplements
- B. What did the authors find?
No abstract; editorial text not read in this review.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Not read (title: 'Enough is enough: stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements').
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports the general tone.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
An editorial is opinion; title consistent with archive.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not verifiable