3 ms·
Is a Cochrane review really a primary source? They're meta-analysis, which I'd think of as secondary. In the case linked, the analysis seems pretty unequivocal
by hkt 6y ago
Is a Cochrane review really a primary source? They're meta-analysis, which I'd think of as secondary.
In the case linked, the analysis seems pretty unequivocally to not support supplementing:
"We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing."
Did I miss something?
- DiabloD3 6y agoVitamin E research also ends up being a bit YMMV: most commercially available Vitamin E is one form only, alpha tocopherol... except Vit E is 8 different forms: 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols. The research that has been done so far basically indicates alpha tocopherol-only supplementation aligns identically with unspecified-Vitamin-E-is-bad research.
- JamesBarney 6y agoThe op talks about sulforaphane but then links to an article about vitamin a and e(I don't know why) They're totally different chemicals that work through completely different pathways. And a study on vitamin a and e etc doesn't tell you much about other supplements. Just like how a study on does whether or not statins are associated with reduced mortality tells you little about whether or not ACE inhibitors are associated with reduced mortality. Also I don't think op meant primary source as in primary vs secondary sources but meant in the sense of "this doctor primarily uses Cochrane as his source for information"