Study Preview
Study Title and Description
Caffeine intake and atrial fibrillation incidence: dose response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
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
-
Comments (0) | - Post/View
| Title | Caffeine intake and atrial fibrillation incidence: dose response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. |
| Author | M Cheng,Z Hu,X Lu,J Huang,D Gu, |
| Country | |
| Year | 2014 |
| 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)? | The association between habitual caffeine intake with incident atrial fibrillation (AF) was unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the association between chronic exposure of caffeine and the risk of AF and to evaluate the potential dose-response relation. |
|
|
| 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 followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology protocol throughout the design, implementation, analysis, and reporting for this study. Data extraction: The following details were recorded for each study: author, year of publication, cohort study name, the geographic location of study, study period, participants’ sex, age range at baseline, health at baseline, and outcome (defined as incidence of AF/flutter). For each study, we obtained information about the levels of coffee/caffeine intake, the number of cases, and the total population at risk at each exposure level, the adjusted estimate of the RR compared with the reference for each exposure level, and the corresponding 95% CIs. Data abstraction was conducted independently by 2 investigators, with disagreements resolved by a third investigator. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess bias in included studies. |
|
|
| How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? | 1 |
|
|
| What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) | Incidence of atrial fibrillation |
|
|
| 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? |
|
||
| 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. ... The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess bias in included studies." |
|
|
| Caffeine (general) | 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.) | Low vs high caffeine consumption. |
|
|
| What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models. Â Copy from methods) | For primary analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled RR and 95% CIs weighted by the inverse variance method. We pooled estimates of each level of exposure against the lowest quintile to derive an overall RR for that study, which was then used for pooled analysis. We conducted subgroup analyses to explore the effect of the level of caffeine exposure and confounding adjustment on pooled results. We considered 2 levels of caffeine intake: low and high. We considered low intake to be < 500 mg/d and high intake to be >/=500 mg/d. The highest category of exposure reported in each study was considered for the group of high caffeine intake, independent of the cutoff value used in that study. When cups of coffee were provided as a measure of caffeine intake, we considered each cup to have an amount of caffeine according to the geographic region of the study: United Kingdom/Northern Europe, 140 mg; Southern Europe, 50 mg; and United States, 85 mg. We performed a sensitivity analysis using other percentiles (10%, 50%, and 90%) of the distribution as knots and obtained similar results. |
|
|
| What conflicts of interest were reported? | "The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose." |
|
|
| Refid | 24680173 |
|
|
| What were the sources of funding? | "Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the National Basic Research Program of China. This work was supported by grants 2011BAI09B03 and 2011BAI11B03 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, China." |
|
Results & Comparisons
No Results found.
, means that you are leaving this Federal Government Web site and entering a non-Federal Web site.