Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31409980›Full record

ReviewClinical interventions in aging2019

Vitamin E and Alzheimer's disease: what do we know so far?

Declan Browne, Bernadette McGuinness, Jayne V Woodside, Gareth J McKay

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical interventions in aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Ferroptosis and hearing loss: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic interventions.Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Declan BrowneCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Bernadette McGuinnessCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Jayne V WoodsideCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Gareth J McKayCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin E has been proposed as a potential clinical intervention for Alzheimer's disease (AD) given the plausibility of its various biological functions in influencing the neurodegenerative processes associated with the condition. The tocopherol and tocotrienol isoforms of vitamin E have multiple properties including potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory characteristics, in addition to influences on immune function, cellular signalling and lowering cholesterol. Several of these roles offer a theoretical rationale for providing benefit for the treatment of AD-associated pathology. Diminished circulating concentrations of vitamin E have been demonstrated in individuals with AD. Reduced plasma levels have furthermore been associated with an increased risk of AD development while intake, particularly from dietary sources, may limit or reduce the rate of disease progression. This benefit may be linked to synergistic actions between vitamin E isoforms and other micronutrients. Nevertheless, randomised trials have found limited and inconsistent evidence of vitamin E supplementation as an effective clinical intervention. Thus, despite a strong rationale in support of a beneficial role for vitamin E for the treatment of AD, the evidence remains inconclusive. Several factors may partly explain this discrepancy and represent the difficulties of translating complex laboratory evidence and dietary interactions into clinical interventions. Methodological design limitations of existing randomised trials and restrictions to supplementation with a single vitamin E isoform may also limit the influence of effect. Moreover, several factors influence individual responsiveness to vitamin E intake and recent findings suggest variation in the underlying genetic architecture attenuates vitamin E biological availability and activity which likely contributes to the variation in clinical responsiveness and the failure of randomised trials to date. Importantly, the clinical safety of vitamin E remains controversial and warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCholesterolDietDietary SupplementsDisease ProgressionHumansMaleNutritional StatusTreatment OutcomeVitamin ECholesterolVitamin EAlzheimer’s diseaseantioxidantstocopherolstocotrienolsvitamin E

Identifiers

PMID31409980
PMCPMC6645610
OpenAlexW2960162334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.