Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28096125›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2017

Dietary Supplements and Risk of Cause-Specific Death, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Primary Prevention Trials.

Lukas Schwingshackl, Heiner Boeing, Marta Stelmach-Mardas, Marion Gottschald, Stefan Dietrich, Georg Hoffmann, Anna Chaimani

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lukas SchwingshacklDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany; lukas.schwingshackl@dife.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3407-7594
Heiner BoeingDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany.
Marta Stelmach-MardasDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany.
Marion GottschaldDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany.
Stefan DietrichDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany.
Georg HoffmannDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and.
Anna ChaimaniDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
German Institute of Human Nutrition · DEPoznan University of Medical Sciences · PLUniversity of Ioannina · GRUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our aim was to assess the efficacy of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer by using meta-analytical approaches. Electronic and hand searches were performed until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) minimum intervention period of 12 mo; 2) primary prevention trials; 3) mean age ≥18 y; 4) interventions included vitamins, fatty acids, minerals, supplements containing combinations of vitamins and minerals, protein, fiber, prebiotics, and probiotics; and 5) primary outcome of all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes of mortality or incidence from CVD or cancer. Pooled effects across studies were estimated by using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall, 49 trials (69 reports) including 287,304 participants met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two trials were judged as low risk-, 15 trials as moderate risk-, and 2 trials as high risk-of-bias studies. Supplements containing vitamin E (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96) significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality risk, whereas supplements with folic acid reduced the risk of CVD (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.94). Vitamins D, C, and K; selenium; zinc; magnesium; and eicosapentaenoic acid showed no significant risk reduction for any of the outcomes. On the contrary, vitamin A was linked to an increased cancer risk (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.35). Supplements with β-carotene showed no significant effect; however, in the subgroup with β-carotene given singly, an increased risk of all-cause mortality by 6% (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.10) was observed. Taken together, we found insufficient evidence to support the use of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, incidence of CVD, and incidence of cancer. The application of some supplements generated small beneficial effects; however, the heterogeneous types and doses of supplements limit the generalizability to the overall population.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsCardiovascular DiseasesDietHumansIncidenceMicronutrientsNeoplasmsNutrition AssessmentObservational Studies as TopicPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMicronutrientscancercardiovascular diseasedietary supplementsmeta-analysismortalitysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28096125
PMCPMC5227980
OpenAlexW2576285435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.