4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: coffee consumption and the risk of cirrhosis

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 562-574

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13523

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [G0901697, G84/6205] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G84/6205, G0901697] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0901697, G84/6205] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundLiver cirrhosis is a large burden on global health, causing over one million deaths per year. Observational studies have reported an inverse association between coffee and cirrhosis. AimsTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the relationship between coffee consumption and cirrhosis. MethodsWe searched for studies published until July 2015 that reported odds ratios, relative risks (RR) or hazard ratios for cirrhosis stratified by coffee consumption. We calculated RRs of cirrhosis for an increase in daily coffee consumption of two cups for each study and overall. We performed analyses by study design, type of cirrhosis and mortality. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the overall quality of evidence for the effect of coffee on cirrhosis. ResultsWe identified five cohort studies and four case-control studies involving 1990 cases and 432 133 participants. We observed a dose-response in most studies and overall. The pooled RR of cirrhosis for a daily increase in coffee consumption of two cups was 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.68; I-2 83.3%). The RR pooled from cohort studies for a daily increase of two cups was 0.58 (95% CI 0.41-0.76; I-2 91.1%) and from case-control studies it was 0.52 (95% CI 0.40-0.63; I-2 0.0%). The pooled RR of alcoholic cirrhosis for a daily increase of two cups was 0.62 (95% CI 0.51-0.73; I-2 0%) and of death from cirrhosis it was 0.55 (95% CI 0.35-0.74; I-2 90.3%). ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that increasing coffee consumption may substantially reduce the risk of cirrhosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据