Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Inflammation and oxidative stress

Vitamin B6and Homocysteine

Only one source here so far, and it found no clear difference in homocysteine.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The numbers reported

No number has been put on this yet. One source recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

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, 1998 · 12 studies pooled

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

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

    BMJ. 1998;316(7135):894-8. PMID:9569395.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no pooled estimate reported for vitamin B6; folic acid alone lowered homocysteine 25% (95% CI 23% to 28%) and added vitamin B-12 a further 7%
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    folic acid based supplement without added vitamin B-6
    Amount taken
    16.5 mg/d vitamin B-6 (mean dose across trials)
    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
    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. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 12 studies it pooled

    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.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • No number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Vitamin B6

Two of the nine things on our list for Vitamin B6 have no reading here yet:

  • High-sensitivity CRP
  • Interleukin-6

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.