Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33002099›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Tea Drinking and Risk of Cancer Incidence: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies and Evidence Evaluation.

Long-Gang Zhao, Zhuo-Ying Li, Guo-Shan Feng, Xiao-Wei Ji, Yu-Ting Tan, Hong-Lan Li, Marc J Gunter, Yong-Bing Xiang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Effect ofArchives of Razi Institute · 2021
    Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Long-Gang ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zhuo-Ying LiState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Guo-Shan FengState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiao-Wei JiState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yu-Ting TanState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hong-Lan LiState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Marc J GunterSection of Nutrition and Metabolism, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Yong-Bing XiangState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here we provide a comprehensive meta-analysis to summarize and appraise the quality of the current evidence on the associations of tea drinking in relation to cancer risk. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched up to June 2020. We reanalyzed the individual prospective studies focused on associations between tea drinking and cancer risk in humans. We conducted a meta-analysis of prospective studies and provided the highest- versus lowest-category analyses, dose-response analyses, and test of nonlinearity of each association by modeling restricted cubic spline regression for each type of tea. We graded the evidence based on the summary effect size, its 95% confidence interval, 95% prediction interval, the extent of heterogeneity, evidence of small-study effects, and excess significance bias. We identified 113 individual studies investigating the associations between tea drinking and 26 cancer sites including 153,598 cancer cases. We assessed 12 associations for the intake of black tea with cancer risk and 26 associations each for the intake of green tea and total tea with cancer risk. Except for an association between lymphoid neoplasms with green tea, we did not find consistent associations for the highest versus lowest categories and dose-response analyses for any cancer. When grading current evidence for each association (number of studies ≥2), weak evidence was detected for lymphoid neoplasm (green tea), glioma (total tea, per 1 cup), bladder cancer (total tea, per 1 cup), and gastric and esophageal cancer (tea, per 1 cup). This review of prospective studies provides little evidence to support the hypothesis that tea drinking is associated with cancer risk. More well-designed studies are still needed to identify associations between tea intake and rare cancers.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsHumansProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSystematic Reviews as TopicTeaTeacancergrading evidencemeta-analysisprospective studiestea

Identifiers

PMID33002099
PMCPMC8009746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.