ArticleScientific reports2023
Noncausal effects between tea intake and migraine risk: a Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Causal factors for migraine in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Coffee Consumption is Associated with a High Prevalence of Headache in a Taiwanese Population Study.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Tea intake and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease risk: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Metabolism open · 2024Article
- Assessing the association between tea intake and risk of dental caries and periodontitis: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observational studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the relationship between tea intake and migraine risk. Residual confounders and potential reverse causality are unavoidable in traditional observational studies. To provide evidence for establishing viable disease screening and prevention strategies, a Mendelian randomization study (MR) was conducted to determine the causal inference between tea intake and migraine. We obtained 28 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for any migraine (AM), 25 SNPs for migraine with aura (MA), and 27 SNPs for migraine without aura (MO) associated with tea intake derived from a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) of the UK Biobank (UKBB) (containing 447,485 samples). The largest migraine GWAS performed by the International Headache Genetics Consortium (IHGC), including 29,209 cases and 172,931 controls, provided data on migraines and their subtypes (MA and MO). We used the method of inverse variance weighting (IVW) with fixed effects as the first-string MR selection. Sensitivity analysis and MR-pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) method further assessed the robustness of the findings. Based on the conclusion of IVW in the fixed effects model, we found that tea intake had no causal relationship with AM risk (odds ratio (OR), 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-1.25; P = 0.65), MA risk (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72; P = 0.83), or MO risk (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.52-1.54; P = 0.69). Sensitivity analyses and MR-PRESSO showed no directional pleiotropy or heterogeneity. Our two-sample MR investigation found no causality between tea intake and migraine risk in European populations, implying that attempts to change tea drinking habits may not lead to a reduced risk of migraine.
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.