Hong Weng, Xian-Tao Zeng, Sheng Li, Joey S. W. Kwong, Tong-Zu Liu, Xing-Huan Wang
Abstract
Background and Objective: Controversial results of the association between tea (black tea, green tea, mate, and oolong tea) consumption and risk of bladder cancer were reported among epidemiological studies. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to investigate the association. Methods: We searched the PubMed and Embase for studies of tea consumption and bladder cancer that were published in any language up to March, 2016. Cohort or case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis. All statistical analyses were performed in Stata 12.0 software. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the relationship between tea consumption and risk of bladder cancer. Results: Totally, 25 case-control studies (15 643 cases and 30 795 controls) and seven prospective cohort studies (1807 cases and 443 076 participants) were included. The meta-analysis showed that tea consumption was not significantly associated with bladder cancer risk (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.86-1.06) (in a comparison of highest vs. lowest category). No non-linearity association was observed between tea consumption and bladder cancer risk (P = 0.51 for non-linearity). Specific analysis for black tea, green tea, and mate yielded similar results. The dose-response analysis showed the summary OR for an increment of 1 cup/day of tea consumption was 1.01 (95% CI 0.97-1.05). Conclusion: Results based on current meta-analysis indicated that no significant association was observed between tea consumption and risk of bladder cancer.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,838,984
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,216
of 13,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,485
of 419,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#82
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
