Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24504676›Full record

SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2014

Tea consumption and leukemia risk: a meta-analysis.

Shanliang Zhong, Zhiyuan Chen, Xinnian Yu, Weixian Chen, Mengmeng Lv, Tengfei Ma, Jianhua Zhao

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. The Effects of Green Tea Catechins in Hematological Malignancies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shanliang ZhongCenter of Clinical Laboratory Science, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Baiziting 42, Nanjing, 210009, China.
Zhiyuan Chen
Xinnian Yu
Weixian Chen
Mengmeng Lv
Tengfei Ma
Jianhua Zhao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiologic findings concerning the association between tea consumption and leukemia risk yielded mixed results. We aimed to investigate the association by performing a meta-analysis of all available studies. One cohort studies and six case-control studies with 1,019 cases were identified using PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. We computed summary relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using random effect model applied to the relative risk associated with ever, moderate, or highest drinkers vs. non/lowest drinkers. Subgroup analyses were performed based on country (China and USA). Compared with non/lowest drinkers, the combined RR for ever drinkers was 0.76 (95 % CI=0.65-0.89). In subgroup analyses, significant inverse associations were found for both China and USA studies. The summary RR was 0.57 (95 % CI=0.41-0.78) for highest drinkers. Same results were only found in China studies. No significant associations were found for moderate drinkers in overall analysis or in subgroup analyses. There was some evidence of publication bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests a significant inverse association of high tea consumption and leukemia risk. Results should be interpreted cautiously given the potential publication bias.

Indexed as

TeaCatechinHumansLeukemiaPublication BiasRiskCatechinepigallocatechin gallateTea

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.