Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35479756›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2022

Hot Tea Consumption and Esophageal Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Hui Luo, Hong Ge

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Common Risk Factors in Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Narrative Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025
    Review
  11. Integrating Salivary Biomarkers CST4 andClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

2 authors.

Hui LuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Hong GeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Many laboratory studies have shown that tea consumption protected against the development of esophageal cancer (EC). However, in epidemiological studies, inconsistent or even contradictory results were frequently observed, especially when drinking tea at higher temperatures. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis based on published observational studies to explore whether hot tea consumption was a risk factor of EC. Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of science up to October 13, 2021, and we also manually retrieved the literature in the included studies and recent reviews. Results: A total of 23 eligible reports were identified, including 5,050 cases and 10,609 controls, and a meta-analysis with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (version 2.0) was conducted. A statistically significant increased EC risk was observed when drinking tea at higher temperature (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.48-2.15, Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that people who drank hot tea had a significantly increased risk of Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but no significant association for EAC.

Indexed as

case-control studyesophageal cancerhot teameta-analysisrisk

Identifiers

PMID35479756
PMCPMC9035825

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.