Study Preview
Study Title and Description
Habitual coffee consumption and risk of heart failure: a dose-response meta-analysis.
Key Questions Addressed
1 | For [population], is caffeine intake above [exposure dose], compared to intakes [exposure dose] or less, associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes? |
Primary Publication Information
Title | Habitual coffee consumption and risk of heart failure: a dose-response meta-analysis. |
Author | E Mostofsky,MS Rice,EB Levitan,MA Mittleman, |
Country | |
Year | 2012 |
Numbers |
Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.
Extraction Form: Cardiovascular Design
Question... Follow Up | Answer | Follow-up Answer | |
---|---|---|---|
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? | Cardiovascular | ||
What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? | We conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies that assessed the relationship between habitual coffee consumption and the risk of heart failure. | ||
Provide a general description of the methods as reported by the authors. Information should be extracted based on relevance to the SR (i.e., caffeine related methods) | We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cinahl) from January 1966 through December 2011 with the use of a standardized protocol. Eligible studies were prospective cohort studies that examined the association of coffee consumption with incident heart failure. Prospective cohort studies were included if they reported odds ratios (ORs) or incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of heart failure incidence or mortality. For every study, the median or mean coffee intake for each category was assigned to each corresponding odds ratio or incidence rate ratio. When the median or mean intake per category was not provided by the study authors, we assigned the midpoint of the upper and lower boundaries in each category as the average intake. If the lower or upper boundary for the lowest and highest category respectively was not reported, we assumed that the boundary had the same magnitude as the closest category. | ||
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? | 1 | ||
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) | Risk of heart failure | ||
List additional health endpoints (separately). 2 | |||
List additional health endpoints (separately).3 | |||
List additional health endpoints (separately).4 | |||
List additional health endpoints (separately).5 | |||
List additional health endpoints (separately).6 | |||
Clinical, physiological, other | Clinical | ||
What is the study design? | Meta-analysis | ||
Randomized or Non-Randomized? | |||
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? | Objective | ||
Optional: Name of Method or short description | We followed the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology protocol throughout the design, implementation, analysis, and reporting for this study. | ||
Caffeine (general) | |||
Coffee, Chocolate, energy drink, gum, medicine/supplement, soda, tea, other? | Coffee | ||
Measured or self reported? | Self-report | ||
Children, adolescents, adults, or pregnant included? | Adults | ||
What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.) | No coffee consumption (0 servings/day) vs. various serving groups up to 11 servings per day. | ||
What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models. Copy from methods) | Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. Possible publication bias was evaluated with Egger's regression asymmetry test. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., 2003) and the metadose macro with 2-tailed α set at p≤0.05 for statistical significance. | ||
What conflicts of interest were reported? | Not discussed. | ||
Refid | 22740040 | ||
What were the sources of funding? | This work was supported by grants (T32-HL098048-03 and T32 CA09001-35) from the National Institute of Health. The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. |
Results & Comparisons
No Results found.