Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Liver, kidney and digestion

Vitamin Eand Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower aspartate aminotransferase (AST).

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The numbers reported

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

-7.44-4.65-1.86

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, 2023

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    The Effect of Vitamin E Supplementation on Serum Aminotransferases in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    Nutrients. 2023;15(17). doi:10.3390/nu15173733. PMID:37686767.

    Number reported
    -4.65
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -7.44 to -1.86
    Source’s own words
    IU/L AST mean difference vs placebo or no intervention, IN THE ASIAN-POPULATION STRATUM (the abstract reports no single overall pooled estimate; the non-Asian stratum is -5.60 IU/L with a CI crossing null)
    Who was studied
    Adult with NAFLD
    Compared with
    placebo or no intervention
    Amount taken
    400 IU/d (upper bound: Not in the abstract)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Studies were heterogeneous; I2 not given in 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 does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. 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 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

  • 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 E

One of the eight things on our list for Vitamin E has no reading here yet:

  • RR Interval (Inter-Beat Interval)

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.