4.4 Article

Dose-response meta-analysis on coffee, tea and caffeine consumption with risk of Parkinson's disease

Journal

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 430-439

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ggi.12123

Keywords

caffeine; coffee; dose-response meta-analysis; Parkinson's disease; tea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimsA dose-response meta-analysis was carried out between Parkinson's disease (PD) risk, and coffee, tea and caffeine consumption. MethodsA comprehensive search was carried out to identify eligible studies. The fixed or random effect model was used based on heterogeneity test. The dose-response relationship was assessed by restricted cubic spline. ResultsA total of 13 articles involving 901764 participants for coffee, eight articles involving 344895 participants for tea and seven articles involving 492724 participants for caffeine were included. A non-linear relationship was found between coffee consumption and PD risk overall, and the strength of protection reached the maximum at approximately 3cups/day (smoking-adjusted relative risk: 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.81). A linear relationship was found between tea and caffeine consumption, and PD risk overall, and the smoking-adjusted risk of PD decreased by 26% and 17% for every two cups/day and 200mg/day increments, respectively. The association of coffee and tea consumption with PD risk was stronger for men than that for women, and the association of caffeine consumption with PD risk was stronger for ever users of hormones than that for never users of hormones among postmenopausal women. The aforementioned associations were weaker for USA relative to Europe or Asia. ConclusionsA linear dose-relationship for decreased PD risk with tea and caffeine consumption was found, whereas the strength of protection reached a maximum at approximately 3cups/day for coffee consumption overall. Further studies are required to confirm the findings. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2014; 14: 430-439.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available