Cited by 818Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsCoffee research and impactsNuclear Receptors and Signaling

A meta‐analysis of coffee drinking, cigarette smoking, and the risk of Parkinson's disease

Hernán, Miguel A., Takkouche, Bahi, Caamaño‐Isorna, Francisco, Gestal‐Otero, Juan J.·2002·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review to summarize the epidemiological evidence on the association between cigarette smoking, coffee drinking, and the risk of Parkinson's disease. Case–control and cohort studies that reported the relative risk of physician‐confirmed Parkinson's disease by cigarette smoking or coffee drinking status were included. Study‐specific log relative risks were weighted by the inverse of their variances to obtain a pooled relative risk and its 95% confidence interval (CI). Results for smoking were based on 44 case–control and 4 cohort studies, and for coffee 8 case–control and 5 cohort studies. Compared with never smokers, the relative risk of Parkinson's disease was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.54–0.63) for ever smokers, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69–0.93) for past smokers, and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.32–0.47) for current smokers. The relative risk per 10 additional pack‐years was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81–0.88) in case–control studies and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73–0.84) in cohort studies. Compared with non–coffee drinkers, relative risk of Parkinson's disease was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59–0.80) for coffee drinkers. The relative risk per three additional cups of coffee per day was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64–0.86) in case–control studies and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46–1.00) in cohort studies. This meta‐analysis shows that there is strong epidemiological evidence that smokers and coffee drinkers have a lower risk of Parkinson's disease. Further research is required on the biological mechanisms underlying this potentially protective effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.10277

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Parkinson disease risk reduction documented in the meta-analysis (OR = 0.67) was of a similar order of magnitude to risk reductions previously noted with caffeine consumption or smoking.

    “To put this into perspective, the risk reduction documented in this meta-analysis (OR ϭ 0.67) was of a similar order of magnitude to the PD risk reductions previously noted with caffeine consumption or smoking, 8”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hernán, M. A., Takkouche, B., Caamaño‐Isorna, F., & Gestal‐Otero, J. J.
Affiliations
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-05-29
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
276-284
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2053969387
Cited by
818
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 35
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nuclear Receptors and Signaling
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, coffee consumption, cigarette smoking, pack-years, disease risk, protective factors, neurodegeneration
MeSH terms
Coffee, Humans, Parkinson Disease, Risk Factors, Smoking, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review