Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of vitamin E on stroke subtypes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Schurks, M., Glynn, R. J., Rist, P. M., Tzourio, C., Kurth, T.·2010·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of vitamin E supplementation on incident total, ischaemic, and haemorrhagic stroke. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo controlled trials published until January 2010. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and reference lists of trial reports. Selection criteria Randomised, placebo controlled trials with ≥1 year of follow-up investigating the effect of vitamin E on stroke. Review methods and data extraction Two investigators independently assessed eligibility of identified trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Two different investigators independently extracted data. Risk ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) were calculated for each trial based on the number of cases and non-cases randomised to vitamin E or placebo. Pooled effect estimates were then calculated. RESULTS: Nine trials investigating the effect of vitamin E on incident stroke were included, totalling 118 765 participants (59 357 randomised to vitamin E and 59 408 to placebo). Among those, seven trials reported data for total stroke and five trials each for haemorrhagic and ischaemic stroke. Vitamin E had no effect on the risk for total stroke (pooled relative risk 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.05), P=0.53). In contrast, the risk for haemorrhagic stroke was increased (pooled relative risk 1.22 (1.00 to 1.48), P=0.045), while the risk of ischaemic stroke was reduced (pooled relative risk 0.90 (0.82 to 0.99), P=0.02). There was little evidence for heterogeneity among studies. Meta-regression did not identify blinding strategy, vitamin E dose, or morbidity status of participants as sources of heterogeneity. In terms of absolute risk, this translates into one additional haemorrhagic stroke for every 1250 individuals taking vitamin E, in contrast to one ischaemic stroke prevented per 476 individuals taking vitamin E. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, vitamin E increased the risk for haemorrhagic stroke by 22% and reduced the risk of ischaemic stroke by 10%. This differential risk pattern is obscured when looking at total stroke. Given the relatively small risk reduction of ischaemic stroke and the generally more severe outcome of haemorrhagic stroke, indiscriminate widespread use of vitamin E should be cautioned against.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.c5702

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 380

Metadata

Authors
Schurks, M., Glynn, R. J., Rist, P. M., Tzourio, C., & Kurth, T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-11-04
Volume
341
Issue
nov04 1
Pages
c5702-c5702
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2164394064
Cited by
380
References
10
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of vitamin E on stroke subtypes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.c5702
The paper
Schurks, M., Glynn, R. J., Rist, P. M., Tzourio, C., & Kurth, T. (2010). Effects of vitamin E on stroke subtypes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5702

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.