Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41728409›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Multivitamins in Adult Medical Practice: Evidence, Risks, and Pragmatic Prescribing.

Pedro M Neves, Sofia Almeida, Vital Domingues

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Pedro M NevesInternal Medicine, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, PRT.
Sofia AlmeidaInternal Medicine, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, PRT.
Vital DominguesInternal Medicine, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, Porto, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Use of multivitamin-mineral supplements is common and often occurs outside clinical care. Evidence for broad preventive benefit remains uncertain. We synthesize validated indications, clinical benefits, and harms, and offer a pragmatic prescribing approach for internists. Narrative review of guidelines, randomized trials, and meta-analyses indexed in major databases (2000-August 2025). Priority was given to high-level evidence on hard outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer incidence/mortality, cognition) and to conditions frequently managed in Internal Medicine (malabsorption, bariatric surgery, alcohol use disorder, aging, restrictive diets). This is not a systematic review. Multivitamins are justified for documented deficiencies or high-risk states, including malabsorption, post-bariatric surgery, chronic alcohol use, pregnancy/lactation, and frailty. In generally nourished adults, multivitamins do not reduce cardiovascular events or mortality, and evidence for cancer prevention is marginal without a mortality impact. Recent data suggest small cognitive benefits in older adults. Risks include hypervitaminosis A/D/E, clinically relevant drug-nutrient interactions, masking of specific deficiencies, behavioral displacement of diet-first strategies, and unnecessary cost. Outside of deficiency or clearly increased need, routine multivitamin prescribing provides little clinical gain and exposes patients to avoidable harms. Internists should screen, test, and treat specifically, prefer targeted nutrients, monitor safety, and educate patients against overreliance on supplements.

Indexed as

alcohol use disorderall-cause mortalitybariatric surgerycancer incidence and mortalitycardiovascular eventsinternal medicinemultivitamin-mineral supplements

Identifiers

PMID41728409
PMCPMC12921372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.