Advanced Search

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?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
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
Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? Cardiovascular
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) Risk of heart failure
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately). 2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Clinical, physiological, other Clinical
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the study design? Meta-analysis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Randomized or Non-Randomized?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? Objective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee, Chocolate, energy drink, gum, medicine/supplement, soda, tea, other? Coffee
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Measured or self reported? Self-report
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Children, adolescents, adults, or pregnant included? Adults
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? Not discussed.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Refid 22740040
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.