Cited by 106Coffee research and impactsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesNutritional Studies and Diet

Caffeine intake and atrial fibrillation incidence: dose response meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies

Cheng, Min, Hu, Zunsong, Lu, Xiangfeng, Huang, Jianfeng, Gu, Dongfeng·2014·Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Abstract

Background 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.Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2013 and references of relevant retrieved articles. Prospective cohort studies were included with relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AF according to coffee/caffeine intake.Results Six prospective cohort studies with 228,465 participants were included. In the primary meta-analysis, caffeine exposure was weakly associated with a reduced risk of AF (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; P = 0.07; I(2) = 73%). In subgroup analyses, pooled results from studies with adjustment of potential confounders showed an 11% reduction for low doses (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.99, P = 0.032; I(2) = 30.9%, P = 0.227) and 16% for high doses (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94, P = 0.002; I(2) = 24.1%, P = 0.267) of caffeine consumption in AF risk. An inverse relation was found between habitual caffeine intake and AF risk (P for overall trend = 0.015; P for nonlinearity = 0.27) in dose-response meta-analysis and the incidence of AF decreased by 6% (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) for every 300 mg/d increment in habitual caffeine intake.Conclusions It is unlikely that caffeine consumption causes or contributes to AF. Habitual caffeine consumption might reduce AF risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cjca.2013.12.026

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • In the AF meta-analyses, there was no significant association between caffeine exposure and AF risk in primary or subgroup analyses considering age, sex, race, study quality, caffeine from coffee versus all sources, caffeine dose or duration of follow-up.

    “There was no significant association between caffeine exposure and AF risk in primary or subgroup analyses, considering age, sex, race, study quality, caffeine from coffee versus caffeine from all sources, caffeine dose or duration of follow-up.”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2014

  • Incidence of AF decreased by 6% (RR=0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.99) for every 300 mg/day increment in habitual caffeine intake up to about 1,000 mg/day.

    “Incidence of AF decreased by 6 % (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI = 0.90-0.99)for every 300 mg per day increment in habitual caffeine intake up to about 1 000 mg per day.”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2014

  • The Panel notes that habitual caffeine consumption from all sources up to about 1,000 mg/day was not significantly associated with an increased risk of AF in the two meta-analyses.

    “The Panel notes that habitual caffeine consumption from all sources up to about 1 000 mg per day was not significantly associated with an increased risk of AF in these two meta-analyses.”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2014

  • An inverse relationship was found between habitual caffeine intake and risk of AF in a dose-response analysis (Cheng et al., 2014).

    “An inverse relationship was found between habitual caffeine intake and the risk of AF in a dose-response analysis (Cheng et al., 2014).”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, M., Hu, Z., Lu, X., Huang, J., & Gu, D.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
Corresponding author
Gu, Dongfeng
Venue
Canadian Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-04
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
448-454
ISSN
0828-282X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017903258
Cited by
106
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
caffeine consumption, atrial fibrillation, dose-response relationship, coffee consumption, cardiovascular risk
MeSH terms
Central Nervous System Stimulants, Atrial Fibrillation, Caffeine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Prospective Studies, Incidence

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