SynthesisOncotarget2017
Tea consumption and the risk of biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose-response relationship between active smoking and lung cancer mortality/prevalence in the Chinese population: a meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Dyslipidemia Might Be Associated with an Increased Risk of Osteoarthritis.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The role of diet and nutrition related indicators in biliary diseases: an umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.Nutrition & metabolism · 2022Review
- Alcoholic liver disease and risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- Aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that tea consumption is associated with the reduced incidence of some types of cancer, possibly including biliary tract cancer. However, the epidemiological evidences for the association with risk of biliary tract cancer are contradictory. Thus, we performed meta-analysis of published observational studies to assess the association between tea consumption and risk of biliary tract cancer. Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science published before October 2016. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of included studies, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, and Begg's and Egger's tests. This meta-analysis includes eight studies comprising 18 independent reports. The incidence of biliary tract cancer reduced about 34% (significantly) for tea intake group in comparison with never intake group (summary odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.85). Additionally, an inverse relationship between tea intake and risk of biliary tract cancer was statistically significant in women (OR = 0.65; 95 % CI = 0.47-0.83), but not in men (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.58-1.13). Dose- response analysis indicated that the risk of biliary tract cancer decreased by 4% with each additional cup of tea one day (relative risk [RR] = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93-0.98, p = 0.001). In summary, tea intake is associated with decreased risk of biliary tract cancer, especially for women.
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.