Trial reportBMC complementary and alternative medicine2012
A six-month crossover chemoprevention clinical trial of tea in smokers and non-smokers: methodological issues in a feasibility study.
Trial report in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liver-related safety assessment of green tea extracts in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2016Pooled it
- Integrative Medicine in Head and Neck Cancer.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Review
- Chemoprevention of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma through inhibition of NF-κB signaling.Oral oncology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChemoprevention crossover trials of tea can be more efficient than parallel designs but the attrition and compliance rates with such trials are unknown.
methodsAttrition (dropouts) and compliance with treatment were assessed in a 25-week randomized, placebo controlled, crossover, feasibility clinical trial of four tea treatments to investigate the effect of tea on oral cancer biomarkers. Each treatment lasted 4 weeks with 2 weeks of washout in between. Participants were 32 smokers and 33 non-smokers without any evidence of premalignant oral lesions. The interventions consisted of packets of green tea, black tea, caffeinated water, or placebo. Participants were assigned to each treatment for four weeks, and were instructed to drink five packets per day while on the treatment. Dropout from the trial and compliance (consumption of ≥85% of the prescribed treatment packets) are the main outcome measures reported.
resultsThere was a high rate of dropout (51%) from the study, and the rates were significantly higher among smokers (64%) than non-smokers (36%). Among participants who completed the study the rate of compliance was 72%. The highest rates of dropouts occurred between the first and second treatment visits in both smokers (38% dropout) and non-smokers (18% dropout). Throughout the study smokers were more likely to dropout than non-smokers. Black tea treatment was associated with the highest rates of dropout among smokers (37%), but was associated with the lowest rate of dropout among non-smokers (4%).
conclusionsIn a study conducted to test the feasibility of a four-treatment crossover tea trial, a high rate of dropout among smokers and non-smokers was observed. Multi-arm crossover tea trials might pose a higher burden on participants and research is needed to improve adherence and treatment compliance in such trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70410203.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.