Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32667980›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

Tea Consumption and Risk of Cancer: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Tai Lim Kim, Gwang Hun Jeong, Jae Won Yang, Keum Hwa Lee, Andreas Kronbichler, Hans J van der Vliet, Giuseppe Grosso, Fabio Galvano, Dagfinn Aune, Jong Yeob Kim and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
11.7field-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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 13 institutions in 10 countries.

Tai Lim KimYonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Gwang Hun JeongCollege of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea.
Jae Won YangDepartment of Nephrology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
Keum Hwa LeeDepartment of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Andreas KronbichlerDepartment of Internal Medicine IV (Nephrology and Hypertension), Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Hans J van der VlietDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Giuseppe GrossoDepartment of Biomedical and Biotechnological Science, School of Medicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Fabio GalvanoDepartment of Biomedical and Biotechnological Science, School of Medicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Dagfinn AuneDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jong Yeob KimYonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Nicola VeroneseNational Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Aging Branch, Padova, Italy.
Brendon StubbsDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Marco SolmiDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Ai KoyanagiParc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu/CIBERSAM, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sung Hwi HongYonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Elena DragiotiPain and Rehabilitation Centre, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Eunyoung ChoDepartment of Dermatology, The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Leandro F M de RezendeUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, São Paulo, Brazil.
Edward L GiovannucciChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jae Il ShinDepartment of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Gabriele GamerithInternal Medicine V, Department of Hematology & Oncology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Yonsei University · KRBrigham and Women's Hospital · USInnsbruck Medical University · ATUniversity of Catania · ITCancer Center Amsterdam · NLGyeongsang National University · KRInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats · ESKing's College London · GBLinköping University · SENeuroscience Institute · ITOslo University Hospital · NOUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tea is one of the most widely consumed beverages, but its association with cancer risk remains controversial and unclear. We performed an umbrella review to clarify and determine the associations between tea consumption and various types of cancer by summarizing and recalculating the existing meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of observational studies reporting associations between tea consumption and cancer risk were searched on PubMed and Embase. Associations found to be statistically significant were further classified into levels of evidence (convincing, suggestive, or weak), based on P value, between-study heterogeneity, prediction intervals, and small study effects. Sixty-four observational studies (case-control or cohort) corresponding to 154 effect sizes on the incidence of 25 types of cancer were included. Forty-three (27.9%) results in 15 different types of cancer were statistically significant. When combining all studies on the same type of cancer, 19 results in 11 different types of cancer showed significant associations with lower risk of gastrointestinal tract organ cancer (oral, gastric, colorectal, biliary tract, and liver cancer), breast cancer, and gynecological cancer (endometrial and ovarian cancer) as well as leukemia, lung cancer, and thyroid cancer. Only the reduced risk of oral cancer in tea-consuming populations (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.72; P value < 10-6) was supported by convincing evidence. Suggestive evidence was found for 6 results on biliary tract, breast, endometrial, liver, and oral cancer. To summarize, tea consumption was shown to have protective effects on some types of cancer, particularly oral cancer. More well-designed prospective studies are needed with consideration of other factors that can cause biases.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTeaFeeding BehaviorHumansIncidenceObservational Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRisk FactorsTeacancermeta-analysisoral cancerteaumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID32667980
PMCPMC7666907
OpenAlexW3042574387

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.