Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Inflammation and oxidative stress

Folateand Homocysteine

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower homocysteine.

How sure anyone can be

Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

Further research may change this.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

-28-25 percent change-23

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

One source, newest first

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, 2000 · 12 studies pooled · 1,114 participants

    Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

    Lowering blood homocysteine with folic acid-based supplements: meta-analysis of randomised trials.

    Indian Heart J. 2000;52(7 Suppl):S59-64. PMID:11339443.

    Number reported
    -25 percent change
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -28 to -23
    Source’s own words
    percent reduction in blood homocysteine vs control, standardised to pre-treatment homocysteine 12 micromol/L and folate 12 nmol/L
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    0.5 to 5 mg/d folic acid
    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, one step down: risk of bias
    1. Starts at High
    2. 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
    3. Ends at ModerateOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness and imprecision
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 12 studies it pooled

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • For how long — 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

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.