4.1 Article

No Association Between Tea Consumption and Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis of Epidemiological Studies

Journal

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 1691-1695

Publisher

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.3.1691

Keywords

Tea consumption; renal cell carcinoma; meta-analysis; epidemiological studies

Categories

Funding

  1. National Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project of China
  2. Health sector scientific research special project [201002010]
  3. Combination of traditional Chinese and Western medicine key disciplines of Zhejiang Province [2012-XK-A23]
  4. Key medical disciplines of Zhejiang province
  5. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [Z2090356, LY12H05006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the association between tea consumption and the risk of renal cell carcinoma. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus between 1970 and November 2012. Two evaluators independently reviewed and selected articles based on predetermined selection criteria. Results: Twelve epidemiological studies (ten case-control studies and two cohort studies) were included in the final analysis. In a meta-analysis of all included studies, when compared with the lowest level of tea consumption, the overall relative risk (RR) of renal cell carcinoma for the highest level of tea consumption was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.21). In subgroup meta-analyses by study design, there was no significant association between tea consumption and renal cell carcinoma risk in ten case-control studies using adjusted data (RR=1.08, 95% CI 0.84-1.40). Furthermore, there was no significant association in two cohort studies using adjusted data (RR=0.95, 95% CI 0.81-1.12). Conclusion: Our findings do not support the conclusion that tea consumption is related to decreased risk of renal cell carcinoma. Further prospective cohort studies are required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available