Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38951141›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2024

A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies on coffee consumption and risk of lung cancer.

Maedeh Jabbari, Asma Salari-Moghaddam, Amir Bagheri, Bagher Larijani, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Caffeine-mediated CD39Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors.

Maedeh JabbariDepartment of Community Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, P.O. Box 14155-6117, Tehran, Iran.
Asma Salari-MoghaddamDepartment of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Amir BagheriSchool of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Bagher LarijaniEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad EsmaillzadehDepartment of Community Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, P.O. Box 14155-6117, Tehran, Iran. asma.salari@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies on the association between coffee consumption and risk of lung cancer have been conflicting. The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on the association between coffee consumption and risk of lung cancer and to quantify this association by performing a meta-analysis. A comprehensive systematic search was performed on online databases up to July 2023 investigating the association between coffee consumption and risk of lung cancer. All prospective cohort studies reporting odds ratios (ORs), rate or risk ratios (RRs), or hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in this context were included. The overall effect size was calculated using the random-effects model and statistical between-studies heterogeneity was examined using Cochrane's Q test and I

Indexed as

CoffeeLung NeoplasmsHumansOdds RatioProspective StudiesRisk FactorsCoffeeCoffeeLung cancerMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38951141
PMCPMC11217372

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.