Cited by 3,285Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative StressRetinal Imaging and Analysis

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Clinical Trial of High-Dose Supplementation With Vitamins C and E, Beta Carotene, and Zinc for Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Vision Loss: AREDS Report No. 8

Open access
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group·2001·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Observational and experimental data suggest that antioxidant and/or zinc supplements may delay progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and vision loss. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of high-dose vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc supplements on AMD progression and visual acuity. DESIGN: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study, an 11-center double-masked clinical trial, enrolled participants in an AMD trial if they had extensive small drusen, intermediate drusen, large drusen, noncentral geographic atrophy, or pigment abnormalities in 1 or both eyes, or advanced AMD or vision loss due to AMD in 1 eye. At least 1 eye had best-corrected visual acuity of 20/32 or better. Participants were randomly assigned to receive daily oral tablets containing: (1) antioxidants (vitamin C, 500 mg; vitamin E, 400 IU; and beta carotene, 15 mg); (2) zinc, 80 mg, as zinc oxide and copper, 2 mg, as cupric oxide; (3) antioxidants plus zinc; or (4) placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Photographic assessment of progression to or treatment for advanced AMD and (2) at least moderate visual acuity loss from baseline (> or =15 letters). Primary analyses used repeated-measures logistic regression with a significance level of.01, unadjusted for covariates. Serum level measurements, medical histories, and mortality rates were used for safety monitoring. RESULTS: Average follow-up of the 3640 enrolled study participants, aged 55-80 years, was 6.3 years, with 2.4% lost to follow-up. Comparison with placebo demonstrated a statistically significant odds reduction for the development of advanced AMD with antioxidants plus zinc (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.98). The ORs for zinc alone and antioxidants alone are 0.75 (99% CI, 0.55-1.03) and 0.80 (99% CI, 0.59-1.09), respectively. Participants with extensive small drusen, nonextensive intermediate size drusen, or pigment abnormalities had only a 1.3% 5-year probability of progression to advanced AMD. Odds reduction estimates increased when these 1063 participants were excluded (antioxidants plus zinc: OR, 0.66; 99% CI, 0.47-0.91; zinc: OR, 0.71; 99% CI, 0.52-0.99; antioxidants: OR, 0.76; 99% CI, 0.55-1.05). Both zinc and antioxidants plus zinc significantly reduced the odds of developing advanced AMD in this higher-risk group. The only statistically significant reduction in rates of at least moderate visual acuity loss occurred in persons assigned to receive antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.73; 99% CI, 0.54-0.99). No statistically significant serious adverse effect was associated with any of the formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Persons older than 55 years should have dilated eye examinations to determine their risk of developing advanced AMD. Those with extensive intermediate size drusen, at least 1 large druse, noncentral geographic atrophy in 1 or both eyes, or advanced AMD or vision loss due to AMD in 1 eye, and without contraindications such as smoking, should consider taking a supplement of antioxidants plus zinc such as that used in this study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.119.10.1417

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 18 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    When the 1063 participants with extensive small drusen, nonextensive intermediate size drusen, or pigment abnormalities were excluded, the odds reduction estimate for antioxidants plus zinc was OR 0.66 (99% CI, 0.47-0.91).

    “Odds reduction estimates increased when these 1063 participants were excluded (antioxidants plus zinc: OR, 0.66; 99% CI, 0.47-0.91;zinc: OR, 0.71; 99% CI, 0.52-0.99;antioxidants: OR, 0.76; 99% CI, 0.55-1.05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The only statistically significant reduction in rates of at least moderate visual acuity loss occurred in persons assigned to receive antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.73; 99% CI, 0.54-0.99).

    “The only statistically significant reduction in rates of at least moderate visual acuity loss occurred in persons assigned to receive antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.73; 99% CI, 0.54-0.99).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The 5-year estimated probability of progression to advanced AMD in either eye in Category 3 participants was 18%.

    “The 5-year estimated probability of progression to advanced AMD in either eye in participants with extensive intermediate drusen, large drusen, or noncentral GA (Category 3) was 18%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When the 1063 participants with extensive small drusen, nonextensive intermediate size drusen, or pigment abnormalities were excluded, the odds reduction estimate for antioxidants was OR 0.76 (99% CI, 0.55-1.05).

    “Odds reduction estimates increased when these 1063 participants were excluded (antioxidants plus zinc: OR, 0.66; 99% CI, 0.47-0.91;zinc: OR, 0.71; 99% CI, 0.52-0.99;antioxidants: OR, 0.76; 99% CI, 0.55-1.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    No statistically significant serious adverse effect was associated with any of the formulations.

    “No statistically significant serious adverse effect was associated with any of the formulations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both zinc and antioxidants plus zinc significantly reduced the odds of developing advanced AMD in the higher-risk group (Categories 3 and 4).

    “Both zinc and antioxidants plus zinc significantly reduced the odds of developing advanced AMD in this higher-risk group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For central GA in Categories 3 and 4, OR estimates were 0.80 for antioxidants, 0.76 for zinc, and 0.75 for antioxidants plus zinc; none were statistically significant but all were in the direction of benefit.

    “Among participants in Categories 3 and 4, an analysis of each treatment compared with placebo for the 257 participants who developed central GA in an eye prior to any documentation of neovascular disease in that eye resulted in OR estimates of 0.80 (99% CI, 0.48-1.32)for antioxidants; 0.76 (99% CI, 0.46-1.27)for zinc; and 0.75 (99% CI, 0.45-1.24)for antioxidants plus zinc.None of the ORs were stat”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Serum levels of lutein and zeaxanthin decreased during the 5-year period, with median percent decreases in year 1 and year 5 of 2% and 13% in placebo, and from 7% to 33% in other treatment arms; changes in treatment arms were not significantly different from placebo (P>.07).

    “Serum levels of lutein and zeaxanthin decreased during the 5-year period, with median percent decreases in year 1 and year 5 of 2% and 13%, respectively, in the placebo arm, and from 7% to 33% in the other treatment arms; however, changes in the treatment arms were not significantly different from the placebo arm (PϾ.07).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the antioxidant arms were hospitalized less frequently for mild/moderate symptoms (7.4% vs 10.1%; P=.005) and more frequently for infections (1.6% vs 0.8%; P=.04).

    “Participants in the antioxidant arms were hospitalized less frequently for mild/moderate symptoms, eg, chest pain or discomfort, vasovagal episode, fever (7.4% vs 10.1%; P=.005), and more frequently for infections (1.6% vs 0.8%; P=.04).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the zinc arms showed an excess of self-reported anemia (13.2% vs 10.2%; P=.004) but serum hematocrit levels showed no difference.

    “Participants in the zinc arms showed an excess of self-reported anemia (13.2% vs 10.2%; P=.004) but serum hematocrit levels showed no difference.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Median percent change in serum level of copper from baseline ranges from a 3% decrease to a 2% increase among all participants regardless of study medication assignment, indicating no differential effect of zinc oxide with added cupric oxide on copper levels.

    “Median percent change in serum level of copper from baseline ranges from a 3% decrease to a 2% increase among all participants regardless of study medication assignment, indicating no differential effect of zinc oxide with added cupric oxide on copper levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For Category 4 placebo participants, the 5-year probability estimate of bilateral visual acuity worse than 20/100 was 28%, and 17% for antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.53; 99% CI, 0.30-0.94).

    “For Category 4 placebo participants the 5-year probability estimate was 28% and 17% for antioxidants plus zinc (antioxidants plus zinc: OR, 0.53; 99% CI, 0.30-0.94)(data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The estimated 5-year probability of visual acuity worse than 20/100 in at least 1 eye was 17% for placebo, 14% for antioxidants (OR, 0.80; 99% CI, 0.55-1.16), 13% for zinc (OR, 0.75; 99% CI, 0.52-1.08), and 12% for antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.46-1.01).

    “The estimated 5-year probability of this severe vision event from repeated-measures analysis was 17% for participants assigned to placebo compared with 14% for those assigned to antioxidants (OR, 0.80; 99% CI, 0.55-1.16),13% to zinc (OR, 0.75; 99% CI, 0.52-1.08),and 12% to antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.46-1.01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Circulatory adverse experiences were less frequent in the antioxidant arms than the nonantioxidant arms (0.3% vs 0.8%; P=.04) and more frequently reported in the zinc arms than the nonzinc arms (0.9% vs 0.3%; P=.01).

    “Circulatory adverse experiences were less frequent in the antioxidant arms than the nonantioxidant arms (0.3% vs 0.8%; P = .04)and more frequently reported in the zinc arms than the nonzinc arms (0.9% vs 0.3%; P=.01).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There is no evidence of treatment benefit in delaying the progression of AMD in participants who began the study in Category 2; all OR estimates cluster around 1.00.

    “There is no evidence of treatment benefit in delaying the progression of AMD in participants who began the study in Category 2; all OR estimates cluster around 1.00 (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Benefit for neovascular AMD was statistically significant for the zinc vs no zinc main effect (OR, 0.76; 99% CI, 0.58-0.98), suggestive for the zinc-alone arm (OR, 0.73; 99% CI, 0.51-1.04), and not significant for antioxidants alone (OR, 0.79; 99% CI, 0.56-1.13).

    “Benefit was statistically significant for the zinc vs no zinc main effect (OR, 0.76; 99% CI, 0.58-0.98),was suggestive for the zinc-alone arm (OR, 0.73; 99% CI, 0.51-1.04),and was not significant for antioxidants alone (OR, 0.79; 99% CI, 0.56-1.13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comparisons of zinc vs no zinc and antioxidants vs no antioxidants (main effects) showed no statistically significant treatment difference for visual acuity loss.

    “Comparisons of zinc vs no zinc and antioxidants vs no antioxidants (main effects) showed no statistically significant treatment difference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The OR for antioxidants plus zinc vs placebo for advanced AMD coincident with visual acuity loss was 0.76 (99% CI, 0.45-1.30) in Category 3 and 0.52 (99% CI, 0.31-0.89) in Category 4, in the direction of benefit for both groups.

    “The OR for antioxidant plus zinc vs placebo estimated separately for participants in Categories 3 (OR, 0.76; 99% CI, 0.45-1.30)and 4 (OR, 0.52; 99% CI, 0.31-0.89) is in the direction of benefit for both groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    An analysis of treatment effect on at least moderate GA not necessarily involving the center showed no significant difference; OR estimates were 0.86 for antioxidants, 1.13 for zinc, and 1.08 for antioxidants plus zinc.

    “An analysis of treatment effect showed no significant difference; OR estimates are 0.86 (99% CI, 0.55-1.34)for antioxidants, 1.13 (99% CI, 0.74-1.74)for zinc, and 1.08 (99% CI, 0.70-1.65)for antioxidants plus zinc (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The estimated 5-year probability of a 6-line (30-letter) loss in visual acuity was 18% for placebo, 15% for zinc (OR, 0.78; 99% CI, 0.55-1.12), 15% for antioxidants (OR, 0.78; 99% CI, 0.55-1.12), and 13% for antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.67; 99% CI, 0.46-0.98).

    “The estimated 5-year probability of a 6-line (30letter) loss in visual acuity from the baseline score was 18% for participants assigned to placebo compared with 15% for participants assigned to either zinc (OR, 0.78; 99% CI, 0.55-1.12)or antioxidants (OR, 0.78; 99% CI, 0.55-1.12),and 13% for participants assigned to antioxidants plus zinc (OR, 0.67; 99% CI, 0.46-0.98).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comparisons between the combination of antioxidants plus zinc and either zinc or antioxidants alone were not statistically significant but favored the combination arm (combination vs zinc alone: OR, 0.88; 99% CI, 0.65-1.18; combination vs antioxidants alone: OR, 0.86; 99% CI, 0.63-1.16).

    “Comparisons between the group taking the combination of antioxidants plus zinc with the groups taking either zinc or antioxidants were not statistically significant but favor the combination arm (combination vs zinc alone: OR, 0.88; 99% CI, 0.65-1.18;combination vs antioxidants alone: OR, 0.86; 99% CI, 0.63-1.16)(data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For participants in Categories 3 and 4, the OR for advanced AMD coincident with a decrease in visual acuity of at least 15 letters was 0.79 (99% CI, 0.55-1.13) for antioxidants vs placebo and 0.75 (99% CI, 0.53-1.07) for zinc vs placebo.

    “For participants in Categories 3 and 4, the OR estimates for this combined outcome for the antioxidants arm and the zinc arm compared with placebo are 0.79 (99% CI, 0.55-1.13)and 0.75 (99% CI, 0.53-1.07),respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There are trends that favor treating with zinc alone or antioxidants alone but no statistically significant differences for visual acuity loss.

    “There are trends that favor treating with zinc alone or antioxidants alone but no statistically significant differences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 5 years, the estimated probability of progression to advanced AMD in Categories 3 and 4 was 28% for placebo, 23% for antioxidants, 22% for zinc, and 20% for antioxidants plus zinc.

    “At 5 years, the estimated probability of progression to advanced AMD was 28% for those assigned to placebo, 23% and 22% for those assigned to antioxidants and zinc, respectively, and 20% for those assigned to antioxidants plus zinc.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mortality risk in the antioxidants plus zinc arm was lower than in the placebo arm but this difference is also not statistically significant.

    “Mortality risk in the antioxidants plus zinc arm was lower than in the placebo arm but this difference is also not statistically significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    For data in this study, OR reductions are greater than estimates of RR reductions.

    “Third, for data in this study OR reductions are greater than estimates of RR reductions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Odds reductions for the antioxidants plus zinc treatment were 24% for Category 3 participants and 48% for Category 4 participants.

    “Odds reductions for the antioxidants plus zinc treatment were 24% for Category 3 participants and 48% for Category 4 participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Participants assigned to zinc arms more frequently reported difficulty swallowing the study tablets (17.8% vs 15.3%; P=.04) compared with participants taking formulations without zinc.

    “Participants assigned to zinc arms more frequently reported difficulty swallowing the study tablets (17.8% vs 15.3%; P = .04)compared with participants taking formulations without zinc.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The treatment benefit is modest and participants in all treatment arms continue to progress to advanced AMD and lose vision over time.

    “The treatment benefit is modest and participants in all treatment arms continue to progress to advanced AMD and lose vision over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    At the time of study enrollment, only 8% of AREDS participants were smokers and 49% were former smokers.

    “At the time of study enrollment, only 8% of AREDS participants were smokers and 49% were former smokers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The treatment effect of the study formulations was in the beneficial direction for both AMD and visual acuity outcomes in participants who chose to supplement with Centrum at baseline and in those who did not.

    “The treatment effect of the study formulations was in the beneficial direction for both AMD and visual acuity outcomes both in the group of participants choosing to supplement with Centrum at baseline and in the group not choosing Centrum at baseline (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For participants who had never smoked, the RR of death for those taking antioxidants alone was increased (RR, 1.57; 99% CI, 0.82-3.02) and suggested no effect on the combination arm (RR, 1.12; 99% CI, 0.56-2.24).

    “For participants who had never smoked, the RR of death for those taking antioxidants alone was increased (RR, 1.57; 99% CI, 0.82-3.02)and suggested no effect on the combination arm (RR, 1.12; 99% CI, 0.56-2.24).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of treatment on mortality stratified by baseline smoking status found no significant effect of antioxidants alone on mortality for current smokers (RR, 0.99; 99% CI, 0.45-2.17) and a nonsignificant reduction in mortality for the combination arm (RR, 0.61; 99% CI, 0.24-1.56).

    “The effect of treatment on mortality stratified by baseline smoking status (current smoker, former smoker, never smoked) found no significant effect of the use of antioxidants alone on mortality for current smokers (RR, 0.99; 99% CI, 0.45-2.17)and a nonsignificant reduction in mortality for the combination arm (RR, 0.61; 99% CI, 0.24-1.56).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both zinc and antioxidants plus zinc significantly reduce the odds of developing advanced AMD for participants in Categories 3 and 4.

    “Although both zinc and antioxidants plus zinc significantly reduce the odds of developing advanced AMD for participants in Categories 3 and 4, the only statistically significant reduction in rates of at least moderate visual acuity loss occurred in persons assigned to antioxidants plus zinc.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Despite the lack of convincing evidence, the marketing and use of antioxidants and zinc in eye-targeted formulations has become a common practice.

    “Despite the lack of convincing evidence, the marketing and use of antioxidants and zinc in eye-targeted formulations has become a common practice.30”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] 30. Sperduto RD, Ferris FL III, Kurinij N. Editorial. Do we have a nutritional treat- ment for age-related cataract or macular degeneration? Arch Ophthalmol. 1990; 108:1403-1405. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    A data and safety monitoring committee monitored 5 end points from the 2 trials simultaneously for both safety and efficacy.

    “A data and safety monitoring committee monitored 5 end points from the 2 trials (AMD and cataract) simultaneously for both safety and efficacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Simple randomization, stratified by clinical center and AMD category, was used to assign treatment.

    “Simple randomization, stratified by clinical center and AMD category, was used to assign treatment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The results reported do not include data from collaborating non-AREDS clinic physicians, although inclusion of this information had no discernible effect on results.

    “The results reported do not include these data, although inclusion of this information had no discernible effect on results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The frequency of missed visits and mean follow-up time did not differ by treatment group.

    “The frequency of missed visits and mean follow-up time (6.3 years) did not differ by treatment group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to receive daily oral tablets containing antioxidants, zinc, antioxidants plus zinc, or placebo.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to receive daily oral tablets containing: (1) antioxidants (vitamin C, 500 mg; vitamin E, 400 IU; and beta carotene, 15 mg); (2) zinc, 80 mg, as zinc oxide and copper, 2 mg, as cupric oxide;(3) antioxidants plus zinc; or (4) placebo.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The Age-Related Eye Disease Study was an 11-center double-masked clinical trial.

    “The Age-Related Eye Disease Study, an 11center double-masked clinical trial, enrolled participants in an AMD trial if they had extensive small drusen, intermediate drusen, large drusen, noncentral geographic atrophy, or pigment abnormalities in 1 or both eyes, or advanced AMD or vision loss due to AMD in 1 eye.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrollment.

    “Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrollment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All comparisons were made on an intention-to-treat basis.

    “All comparisons were made on an intention-to-treat basis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Results from an analysis of mean change in visual acuity were consistent with results from the repeated-measures analysis.

    “Results from an analysis of mean change in visual acuity (data not shown) were consistent with results from the repeated-measures analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because persons are the units of analysis, no adjustment for correlation between paired eyes is needed.

    “Because persons are the units of analysis, no adjustment for correlation between paired eyes is needed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Study medication tablets for the 4 treatment groups were identical in external appearance and similar in internal appearance and taste.

    “Study medication tablets for the 4 treatment groups were identical in external appearance and similar in internal appearance and taste.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    More than 99% of fundus photographs taken during the clinical trial were judged by the reading center to be of gradable quality for the development of advanced AMD.

    “More than 99% of fundus photographs taken during the clinical trial were judged by the reading center to be of gradable quality for the development of advanced AMD.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Most participants (90%) had at least 5 years of follow-up.

    “Most participants (90%) had at least 5 years of follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The frequency of baseline characteristics was similar among the 4 treatment groups and no large or statistically significant differences were found.

    “The frequency of these characteristics was similar among the 4 treatment groups and no large or statistically significant differences were found.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants without photographic or visual acuity follow-up were evenly distributed across treatment groups.

    “Participants without photographic or visual acuity follow-up were evenly distributed across treatment groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The protocol was approved by an independent data and safety monitoring committee and by the institutional review board for each clinical center.

    “Prior to study initiation, the protocol was approved by an independent data and safety monitoring committee and by the institutional review board for each clinical center.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Estimated pill counts showed that most patients took 75% or more of the assigned medications and adherence was balanced by treatment.

    “Estimated pill counts showed that most patients took 75% or more of the assigned medications and adherence was balanced by treatment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Persons who smoke are at increased risk for both AMD and lung cancer.

    “Persons who smoke are at increased risk for both AMD 50 and lung cancer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [50] 50. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. Risk factors associated with age-related macular degeneration: a case-control study in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study: AREDS Report No 3. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2224-2232.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Their results may be consistent with the AREDS finding of little or no treatment effect in slowing the progression of AMD in Category 2 participants.

    “Their results may be consistent with the AREDS finding of little or no treatment effect in slowing the progression of AMD in Category 2 participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The AREDS clinical trial of cataract found no effect of treatment on the development of lens opacity, and the proportion of participants with cataract surgery in 1 or both eyes during the study was balanced across treatment groups.

    “The AREDS clinical trial of cataract found no effect of treatment on the development of lens opacity, 46 and the proportion of participants with cataract surgery in 1 or both eyes during the study was balanced across treatment groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] 46. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo- controlled clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E and beta carotene for age-related cataract and vision loss: AREDS Report No. 9. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1439-1452.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The comparisons of treatment effect by Centrum use were underpowered and the choice to use Centrum was confounded by the presence of AMD at study entry.

    “However, these comparisons are underpowered and the choice to use Centrum was confounded by the presence of AMD at study entry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Tissue levels of the vitamins and minerals studied were not measured.

    “Tissue levels of the vitamins and minerals studied were not measured.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Using fundus photographs without fluorescein angiography to identify advanced AMD may delay the identification of advanced AMD events and may underestimate the absolute incidence.

    “Using fundus photographs without fluorescein angiography to identify advanced AMD may delay the identification of advanced AMD events and may underestimate the absolute inci-dence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The assessment of the outcome is identical in each randomized treatment group.

    “the assessment of the outcome is identical in each randomized treatment group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The dose of vitamin C (500 mg) used in the formulation is about 5 times what the general population receives from diet alone.

    “The dose of vitamin C (500 mg) used in the formulation is about 5 times what the general population receives from diet alone.44”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] 44. Alaimo K, McDowell MA, Briefel RR, et al. Dietary intake of vitamins, minerals, and fiber of persons ages 2 months and over in the United States: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Phase 1, 1988-91. Adv Data. 1994;14: 1-28.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

55 of 55
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There is no interaction between the antioxidant formulation and the zinc formulation.

    “Sequential monitoring of end points assumed no interaction between the antioxidant formulation and the zinc formulation, so that only main effects were analyzed.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Visual acuity loss of at least 15 letters is a clinically meaningful outcome for AMD.

    “at least a 15-letter decrease in the visual acuity score between baseline and each follow-up visit (equivalent to at least a doubling of the initial visual angle)”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The examining ophthalmologist's attribution of visual acuity events to macular degeneration is accurate.

    “only 13 of these events (7%) were thought by the examining ophthalmologist to be primarily related to macular degeneration.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Serum levels of antioxidants and zinc reflect adherence to study medication.

    “These results indicate a definite serum response to each study ingredient.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 400-IU dose of vitamin E is about 13 times the RDA and the dose of zinc as zinc oxide is about 5 times the RDA.

    “The 400-IU dose of vitamin E is about 13 times the RDA and the dose of zinc as zinc oxide is about 5 times the RDA.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AREDS participants were relatively well-nourished compared with the general population.

    “The AREDS participants were relatively well-nourished compared with the general population”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most cases of advanced AMD are identified with long-term follow-up.

    “Most cases are identified with long-term follow-up”
7 of 7

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large, multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trials have reported the effectiveness of AREDS and AREDS 2 supplements in reducing AMD progression to geographic atrophy and neovascular disease.

    “Large, multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trials have reported the effectiveness of using AREDS and AREDS 2 supplements in reducing AMD progression to geographic atrophy and neovascular disease [10,11].”

    From Genetics and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Practical Review for Clinicians. (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

    In “Development of Neovascular AMD” (page unavailable), the AREDS trial reports a statistically significant reduction in neovascular AMD with antioxidants plus zinc versus placebo among participants in Categories 3 and 4. The same section reports a lower estimated rate of central geographic atrophy, but that result was not statistically significant, so the claim overstates the evidence for reducing geographic atrophy. This source is the AREDS trial; the sentence also cites a separate source for AREDS 2. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Zinc alone decreased the incidence of blindness due to age-related macular degeneration in 25% of these elderly subjects.

    “Zinc alone has decreased the incidence of blindness due to age-related macular degeneration in 25% of these elderly subjects, and, most important, increased longevity has also been reported in those treated with zinc (41,42).”
  • A long-term, still ongoing trial has been conducted for the past 10 years in patients with age-related macular degeneration who received 80 mg elemental zinc as oxide and 2 mg Cu to prevent copper deficiency.

    “A long-term, still ongoing trial has been conducted for the past 10 y in patients with age-related macular degeneration who received 80 mg elemental zinc as oxide and 2 mg Cu to prevent copper deficiency (41).”
  • Increased longevity has been reported in elderly subjects treated with zinc.

    “Zinc alone has decreased the incidence of blindness due to age-related macular degeneration in 25% of these elderly subjects, and, most important, increased longevity has also been reported in those treated with zinc (41,42).”
  • Antioxidants, nuts, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have protective effects against AMD.

    “analyses have revealed protective effects from antioxidants, nuts, fish, and omega-3 polysaccharide unsaturated fatty acids (AREDS, 2001; Cho et al., 2001; Seddon et al., 1994, 2001; Smith et al., 2000).”

    From Molecular pathology of age-related macular degeneration (2009) · cites this paper as AREDS, 2001

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Claim that every supplemented nutrient rose conflicts with copper results

    Minor

    Copper was included in the zinc-containing formulation, but the paper reports no differential effect on serum copper levels. That conflicts with its later statement that serum levels of each vitamin or mineral in the assigned formulations were elevated throughout the study.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [9]9. Fine SL, Berger JW, Maguire MG, Ho AC. Drug therapy: age-related macular de- generation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:483-492.
  2. [47]47. Taylor HR, Tikellis G, Robman LD, McCarty CA, McNeil JJ. Vitamin E supple- mentation and age-related maculopathy [ARVO abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:S311. Abstract No. 1676.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group
Corresponding author
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
2001-10-01
Volume
119
Issue
10
Pages
1417
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2598520882
Cited by
3,285
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 125 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 118 · 2015: 164 · 2014: 170 · 2013: 154 · 2012: 176
FWCI
90.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Wake Forest University
  • University of Washington
  • Georgetown University
  • Università degli Studi di Parma
  • National Institutes of Health (1z01ey000394-01, Z01 EY000394)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Eye Institute (Z01 EY000394-03)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • NIH Clinical Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
age-related macular degeneration, vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc supplementation, antioxidants, visual acuity loss, drusen, geographic atrophy, AMD progression, blindness prevention, AREDS, dietary supplements, serum zinc, copper supplementation, macular pigment optical density, retinal pigment epithelium, macular pigment
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antioxidants, Ascorbic Acid, Double-Blind Method, Drug Evaluation, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Vision Disorders, Visual Acuity, Vitamin E, Zinc, Disease Progression, beta Carotene, Dietary Supplements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review