ArticleBMC cancer2016
Coffee consumption and the risk of malignant melanoma in the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) Study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Life Factors and Melanoma: From the Macroscopic State to the Molecular Mechanism.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Coffee consumption, cancer, and healthy aging: epidemiological evidence and underlying mechanisms.GeroScience · 2025Review
- The cure from within? a review of the microbiome and diet in melanoma.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2022Review
- Nutritional Interventions for Patients with Melanoma: From Prevention to Therapy-An Update.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Association Between Parkinson's Disease and Melanoma: Putting the Pieces Together.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2020Article
- Dietary compounds and cutaneous malignant melanoma: recent advances from a biological perspective.Nutrition & metabolism · 2019Review
- Coffee, tea and melanoma risk: findings from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.International journal of cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoffee contains biologically-active substances that suppress carcinogenesis in vivo, and coffee consumption has been associated with a lower risk of malignant melanoma. We studied the impact of total coffee consumption and of different brewing methods on the incidence of malignant melanoma in a prospective cohort of Norwegian women.
methodsWe had baseline information on total coffee consumption and consumption of filtered, instant, and boiled coffee from self-administered questionnaires for 104,080 women in the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) Study. We also had follow-up information collected 6-8 years after baseline. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data, and multivariable Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for malignant melanoma by consumption category of total, filtered, instant, and boiled coffee.
resultsDuring 1.7 million person-years of follow-up, 762 cases of malignant melanoma were diagnosed. Compared to light consumers of filtered coffee (≤1 cup/day), we found a statistically significant inverse association with low-moderate consumption (>1-3 cups/day, HR = 0.80; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.98) and high-moderate consumption of filtered coffee (>3-5 cups/day, HR = 0.77; 95 % CI 0.61-0.97) and melanoma risk (p trend = 0.02). We did not find a statistically significant association between total, instant, or boiled coffee consumption and the risk of malignant melanoma in any of the consumption categories.
conclusionsThe data from the NOWAC Study indicate that a moderate intake of filtered coffee could reduce the risk of malignant melanoma.
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.