Cited by 103Tea Polyphenols and EffectsCoffee research and impactsNutritional Studies and Diet

Tea consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: a dose–response meta-analysis of cohort studies

Open access
Yang, Wan-Shui, Wang, Wei-Ye, Fan, Wen-Yan, Deng, Qin, Wang, Xin·2014·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Tea consumption has inconsistently been shown to be associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim of the present study was to conduct a dose–response meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing the association between consumption of tea and risk of developing T2D. Pertinent studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE through 31 March 2013. A total of sixteen cohorts from fifteen articles that reported 37 445 cases of diabetes among 545 517 participants were included. A significant linearly inverse association between tea consumption and T2D risk was found (P for linear trend = 0·02). An increase of 2 cups/d in tea consumption was found to be associated with a 4·6 (95 % CI 0·9, 8·1) % reduced risk of T2D. On the basis of the dose–response meta-analysis, the predicted relative risks of diabetes for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cups of tea consumed per d were 1·00 (referent), 0·97 (95 % CI 0·94, 1·01), 0·95(95 % CI 0·92, 0·98), 0·93 (95 % CI 0·88, 0·98), 0·90 (95 % CI 0·85, 0·96), 0·88 (95 % CI 0·83, 0·93) and 0·85 (95 % CI 0·80, 0·91), respectively. There was a statistically significant heterogeneity within the selected studies (Q= 45·32, P< 0·001, I2= 60·3 %). No evidence of substantial small-study bias was found (P= 0·46). Our findings suggest that tea consumption could be linearly inversely associated with T2D risk. Future well-designed observational studies that account for different characteristics of tea such as tea types, preparation methods and tea strength are needed to fully characterise such an association.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114513003887

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, W.-S., Wang, W.-Y., Fan, W.-Y., Deng, Q., & Wang, X.
Affiliations
Jiujiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wang, Xin
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2013-12-04
Volume
111
Issue
8
Pages
1329-1339
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2156772059
Cited by
103
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Tea Polyphenols and Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
tea consumption, type 2 diabetes, dose-response relationship, diabetes risk, tea types
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Phytotherapy, Tea, Cohort Studies, Camellia sinensis, Plant Preparations

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