SynthesisDiagnostic pathology2014
Tea consumption didn't modify the risk of fracture: a dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in Diagnostic pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tea consumption and risk of bone health: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2024Pooled it
- The Association between Tea Consumption and the Risk of Fracture: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2021Pooled it
- Tea consumption and risk of fractures: an updated meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Urinary and Daily Assumption of Polyphenols and Hip-Fracture Risk: Results from the InCHIANTI Study.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Prevalence and determinants of stunting and wasting among public primary school children in Gondar town, northwest, Ethiopia.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
- Habitual Tea Consumption and Risk of Fracture in 0.5 Million Chinese Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study.Nutrients · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractures are important causes of healthy damage and economic loss nowadays. The conclusions of observational studies on tea consumption and fracture risk are still inconsistent. The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine the effect of tea drinking on the risk of fractures.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and reference lists of the relevant articles. Observational studies that reported an estimate of the association between tea drinking and incidence of fractures were included. A meta-analysis was conducted by the STATA software.
resultsA total of 9 studies involving 147,950 individuals that examined the association between tea consumption and risk of fractures were included in this meta-analysis. The odds risks (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. The pooled OR of 9 observational studies for the tea consumption on risk of fracture was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-1.04). In the subgroup analyses, no significant association was detected in neither cohort studies (n=3; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.06) nor case-control studies (n=6; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.19), respectively. No significant association was detected in the dose-response meta-analysis.
conclusionsTea consumption might not be associated with the risk of fractures. The following large-sample and well-designed studies are required to confirm the existing conclusions. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/5309904231178427.
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.