The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Green tea, black tea and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
Abstract
Experimental studies have shown that tea and tea polyphenols have anti-carcinogenic properties against breast cancer. A number of epidemiologic studies, both case-control and cohort in design, have examined the possible association between tea intake and breast cancer development in humans. This meta-analysis included 13 papers which examined populations in eight countries and provided data on consumption of either green tea or black tea, or both in relation to breast cancer risk. Summary odds ratios (ORs) for highest versus non/lowest tea consumption level were calculated based on fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity between studies was examined via the Q statistics. For green tea, the combined results from the four studies indicated a reduced risk of breast cancer for highest versus non/lowest intake (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-0.98). For black tea, conflicting results were observed in case-control versus cohort studies. The combined results from the eight case-control studies showed a minor inverse association between black tea consumption and risk of breast cancer (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84-0.98). This inverse association was stronger in hospital-based (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.50-1.19) than population-based case-control studies (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.81-1.09). Five cohort studies demonstrated a modest increase in risk associated with black tea intake (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.31). The results of this meta-analysis indicate a lower risk for breast cancer with green tea consumption. Available data suggest a possible late-stage, promotional effect of black tea on breast carcinogenesis.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.3.203 · Cited by 716
Soya foods and breast cancer risk: A prospective study in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
Key, T. J., Sharp, G. B., Appleby, P. N., Beral, V, Goodman, M. T., Soda, M., & Mabuchi, K. (1999) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6690837 · Cited by 262
Cited by
Tea Polyphenols for Health Promotion
Khan, N., & Mukhtar, H. (2007) · Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2007.06.011 · Cited by 1,156
Dietary phytochemicals and cancer chemoprevention: a review of the clinical evidence
Kotecha, R., Takami, A., & Espinoza, J. L. (2016) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.9593 · Cited by 396
Tea consumption and cognitive impairment and decline in older Chinese adults
Ng, T.-P., Feng, L., Niti, M., Kua, E.-H., & Yap, K.-B. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/88.1.224 · Cited by 236
Jew, S., AbuMweis, S. S., & Jones, P. J. H. (2009) · Journal of Medicinal Food · doi:10.1089/jmf.2008.0268 · Cited by 219
Khalesi, S., Sun, J., Buys, N., Jamshidi, A., Nikbakht-Nasrabadi, E., & Khosravi-Boroujeni, H. (2014) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-014-0720-1 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Sun, C.-L., Yuan, J.-M., Koh, W.-P., & Yu, M. C.
- Venue
- Carcinogenesis
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-11-25
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1310-1315
- ISSN
- 0143-3334 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2180
- OpenAlex
- W2140971353
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Green tea, black tea and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/carcin/bgi276
- The paper
- Sun, C.-L., Yuan, J.-M., Koh, W.-P., & Yu, M. C. (2006). Green tea, black tea and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Carcinogenesis. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgi276
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.