Funded in part by Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Fonden
Association between coffee or caffeine consumption and fecundity and fertility: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Lyngsø J, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Bay B, Ingerslev HJ, Hulman A, Kesmodel US
Clinical epidemiology · 42 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- University or hospital
- Aarhus Universitet
- Government
- European Food Safety Authority
- University or hospital
- Danish Diabetes Academy
- Company
- Novo Nordisk
- Company
- Novo Nordisk Fonden
Based on 5 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2017-12-01 · Clin Epidemiol · vol. Volume 9 · pp. 699–719
- Publisher
- Dove Medical Press
- Cited
- 61 citations · more than 72% of similar papers · 1.0× the field average
- References
- 120 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC
- Research areas
- Coffee research and impacts · Ovarian function and disorders · Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Keywords
- Fecundity, Caffeine, Fertility, Medicine, Meta-analysis, Consumption (sociology), Demography, Traditional medicine, Internal medicine, Environmental health, Population, Social science
6 authors
From DK
- Julie LyngsøAarhus University
- Cecilia Høst Ramlau‐HansenAarhus University
- Bjørn BayRegional Hospital Horsens
- Hans Jakob IngerslevAarhus University Hospital
- Ádám HulmánAarhus University; Danish Diabetes Academy
- Ulrik Schiøler KesmodelGentofte Hospital
Abstract
Objective
The aim was to investigate whether coffee or caffeine consumption is associated with reproductive endpoints among women with natural fertility (ie, time to pregnancy [TTP] and spontaneous abortion [SAB]) and among women in fertility treatment (ie, clinical pregnancy rate or live birth rate).
Design
This study was a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis including data from case-control and cohort studies.
Methods
An extensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase, with no time and language restrictions. Also, reference lists were searched manually. Two independent reviewers assessed the manuscript quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A two-stage dose-response meta-analysis was applied to assess a potential association between coffee/caffeine consumption and the outcomes: TTP, SAB, clinical pregnancy, and live birth. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane Q-test and I2 statistics. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's regression test.
Results
The pooled results showed that coffee/caffeine consumption is associated with a significantly increased risk of SAB for 300 mg caffeine/day (relative risk [RR]: 1.37, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.19; 1.57) and for 600 mg caffeine/day (RR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.62; 3.31). No association was found between coffee/caffeine consumption and outcomes of fertility treatment (based on two studies). No clear association was found between exposure to coffee/caffeine and natural fertility as measured by fecundability odds ratio (based on three studies) or waiting TTP (based on two studies).
Conclusion
Results from this meta-analysis support the growing evidence of an association between coffee/caffeine intake and the risk of SAB. However, viewing the reproductive capacity in a broader perspective, there seems to be little, if any, association between coffee/caffeine consumption and fecundity. In general, results from this study are supportive of a precautionary principle advised by health organizations such as European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and World Health Organization (WHO), although the advised limit of a maximum of two to three cups of coffee/200-300 mg caffeine per day may be too high.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.