Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28454102›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2017

An inverse association between tea consumption and colorectal cancer risk.

Yuetong Chen, Yuan Wu, Mulong Du, Haiyan Chu, Lingjun Zhu, Na Tong, Zhengdong Zhang, Meilin Wang, Dongying Gu, Jinfei Chen

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yuetong ChenDepartment of Oncology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yuan WuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Mulong DuDepartment of Environmental Genomics, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Haiyan ChuDepartment of Environmental Genomics, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Lingjun ZhuDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Na TongDepartment of Environmental Genomics, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zhengdong ZhangDepartment of Environmental Genomics, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Meilin WangDepartment of Environmental Genomics, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Dongying GuDepartment of Oncology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jinfei ChenDepartment of Oncology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Nanjing Medical University · CNJiangsu Province Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is well known that the tea extracts, mainly polyphenols as chemo-preventive elements, could act as cancer progression blockers. Although the association between tea consumption and colorectal cancer risk has been widely investigated, the results still remain inconsistent. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate their relationships by enrolling qualified 29 literatures. The summary odds ratio (OR) of colorectal cancer for the highest vs. lowest tea consumption was 0.93 with 0.87-1.00 of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) among all studies with modest heterogeneity (P = 0.001, I2 = 43.4%). Stratified analysis revealed that tea, especially green tea, had a protective effect among female and rectal cancer patients. Particularly, the dose-response analysis showed that there was a significant inverse association between an increment of 1 cup/day of tea consumption and colorectal cancer risk in the subgroup of the green tea drinking (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96-1.01, Pnonlinear = 0.003) and female (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.56-0.81, Pnonlinear < 0.001). Our findings indicate that tea consumption has an inverse impact on colorectal cancer risk, which may have significant public health implications in the prevention of colorectal cancer and further similar researches.

Indexed as

TeaChinaColonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsEatingFemaleHumansMaleOdds RatioPlant ExtractsRiskSex FactorsPlant ExtractsTeacolorectal cancerinverse associationtea consumption

Identifiers

PMID28454102
PMCPMC5514915
OpenAlexW2605018548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.