Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28490552›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Coffee, including caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

Oliver John Kennedy, Paul Roderick, Ryan Buchanan, Jonathan Andrew Fallowfield, Peter Clive Hayes, Julie Parkes

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prevention, surveillance, and early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma - a Brazilian multidisciplinary consensus.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2026
    Guideline
  2. The Impact of Lockdowns on Caffeine Consumption: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Chemoprevention of hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatology communications · 2025
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Oliver John KennedyPrimary Care and Population Sciences Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul RoderickPrimary Care and Population Sciences Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ryan BuchananPrimary Care and Population Sciences Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jonathan Andrew FallowfieldMRC Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Peter Clive HayesMRC Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Julie ParkesPrimary Care and Population Sciences Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Primary Health Care · QAUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the association between coffee, including caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and assess the influence of HCC aetiology and pre-existing liver disease.

designWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated relative risks (RRs) of HCC according to caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee consumption using a random-effects dose-response meta-analysis. We tested for modification of the effect estimate by HCC aetiology and pre-existing liver disease. We judged the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

resultsWe found 18 cohorts, involving 2 272 642 participants and 2905 cases, and 8 case-control studies, involving 1825 cases and 4652 controls. An extra two cups per day of coffee was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of HCC (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.72). The inverse association was weaker for cohorts (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77), which were generally of higher quality than case-control studies (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69). There was evidence that the association was not significantly altered by stage of liver disease or the presence/absence of high alcohol consumption, high body mass index, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, or hepatitis B and C viruses. An extra two cups of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee (2 and 3 cohort studies, respectively) were associated with reductions of 27% (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85) and 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00) in the risk of HCC. However, due to a lack of randomised controlled trials, potential publication bias and there being no accepted definition of coffee, the quality of evidence under the GRADE criteria was 'very low'.

conclusionsIncreased consumption of caffeinated coffee and, to a lesser extent, decaffeinated coffee are associated with reduced risk of HCC, including in pre-existing liver disease. These findings are important given the increasing incidence of HCC globally and its poor prognosis.

Indexed as

CaffeineCarcinoma, HepatocellularCoffeeDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansLiver NeoplasmsRisk Reduction BehaviorCaffeineCoffeecoffeeHCChepatocellular carcinomaliver diseasemeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID28490552
PMCPMC5730000
OpenAlexW2613817387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.