Heart and blood pressure
Folateand Major cardiovascular events
Two sources here, and they say different things: one measured lower major cardiovascular events and one found no clear difference.
How sure anyone can be
Low certainty, level 2 of 4Further research is likely to change this.
The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.
The numbers reported
One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.
0.920.96 risk ratio0.99
This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.
Two sources, newest first
We do not pick between these or average them into one number.
What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.
Systematic review, 2016
Low certainty, level 2 of 4Folic Acid Supplementation and the Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(8). doi:10.1161/JAHA.116.003768. PMID:27528407.
- Number reported
- 0.96 risk ratio
- Which way it went
- Lower
- Likely range
- 0.92 to 0.99
- Source’s own words
- pooled relative risk for overall cardiovascular disease vs control
- Who was studied
- Adult
- Compared with
- control
- Amount taken
- Not in the abstract
- For how long
- Not in the abstract
- Disagreement between studies
- Not in the abstract
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
- Starts at High
- Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
- Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
- Ends at Low2 steps down.
- Checked, nothing to step it down for
- indirectness
- Inconsistency
- No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it
Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.
AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.
Systematic review, 2010
Low certainty, level 2 of 4Effects of lowering homocysteine levels with B vitamins on cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cause-specific mortality: Meta-analysis of 8 randomized trials involving 37 485 individuals.
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(18):1622-31. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.348. PMID:20937919.
- Number reported
- 1.01 risk ratio
- Which way it went
- No clear difference
- Likely range
- 0.97 to 1.05
- Source’s own words
- rate ratio for major vascular events vs placebo
- Who was studied
- Adult at increased cardiovascular risk
- Compared with
- placebo
- Amount taken
- Not in the abstract
- For how long
- 1,826 days
- Disagreement between studies
- Not in the abstract
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
- Starts at High
- Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
- Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe confidence interval includes no effectReported in the abstract
- Ends at Low2 steps down.
- Checked, nothing to step it down for
- indirectness
- Inconsistency
- No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it
Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.
AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.
What is still missing from these readings
- Two do not say how many people took part.
- Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
- For how long — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.
Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.
Nothing left on our list for Folate
All eight things on our list for Folate have been read. That is rare here.
Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.
Read next
Folate
Seven other questions read for it
Heart and blood pressure
49 questions read under it
Major cardiovascular events
Six other ingredients read against it
Alphabetical, and by nothing else.
This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.