Table 1 Cohort studies of coffee consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
From: Does long-term coffee intake reduce type 2 diabetes mellitus risk?
Reference | Experimental Protocol/ Follow-up (y) | Subjects | Dose (cups/d)† | Results Relative Risk (95% Confidence Interval) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
van Dam & Feskens, 2002[7] | Prospective cohort/7 | 117111 M and W | ≤2 | 1 (reference) |
3-4 | 0.79 (0.57-1.10) | |||
5-6 | 0.73 (0.53-1.01) | |||
≥7 | 0.50 (0.35-0.72) | |||
Saremi et al., 2003[20] | Prospective cohort/11 | 2680 M and W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
Pima Indians | 1-2 | 0.92 (0.74-1.13) | ||
≥3 | 1.01 (0.82-1.26) | |||
Reunanen et al., 2003 [19]) | Prospective cohort/16 | 19518 M and W | ≤2 | 1 (reference) |
3-4 | 1.01 (0.81-1.27) | |||
5-6 | 0.98 (0.79-1.21) | |||
≥7 | 0.92 (0.73-1.16) | |||
Rosengren et al., 2004[10] | Prospective cohort/18 | 1361 W | ≤2 | 1 (reference) |
3-4 | 0.55 (0.32-0.95) | |||
5-6 | 0.39 (0.20-0.77) | |||
≥7 | 0.48 (0.22-1.06) | |||
Salazar-Martinez et al., 2004[8] | ||||
-Health Professionals Follow-up Study | Prospective cohort/12 | 41934 M | 0 | 1 (reference) |
1-3 | 0.93 (0.80-1.08) | |||
4-5 | 0.71 (0.53-0.94) | |||
≥6 | 0.46 (0.26-0.82) | |||
-Nurses' Health Study | Prospective cohort/18 | 84276 W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
1-3 | 0.99 (0.90-1.08) | |||
4-5 | 0.70 (0.60-0.82) | |||
≥6 | 0.71 (0.56-0.89) | |||
Tuomilehto et al., 2004[11] | Prospective cohort/12 | 14629 M and W | ≤2 | 1 (reference) |
3-4 | 0.76 (0.57-1.01) | |||
5-6 | 0.54 (0.40-0.73) | |||
7-9 | 0.55 (0.37-0.81) | |||
≥10 | 0.39 (0.24-0.64) | |||
Carlsson et al., 2004[9] | Prospective cohort/20 | 10652 M and W | ≤2 | 1 (reference) |
3-4 | 0.70 (0.48-1.01) | |||
5-6 | 0.71 (0.50-1.01) | |||
≥7 | 0.65 (0.44-0.96) | |||
van Dam et al, 2004[63] | Cross-sectional and prospective data/6 | 1312 M and W | 5 | Cross-sectional: lower fasting insulin concentrations but not with lower fasting glucose concentrations |
Hoorn Study | ||||
Prospective: | ||||
≤2 | 1 (reference) | |||
3-4 | 0.94 (0.56-1.55) | |||
5-6 | 0.92 (0.53-1.61) | |||
≥7 | 0.69 (0.31-1.51) | |||
van Dam & Hu, 2005[21] | Systematic review (9 cohorts) | 193473 M and W | ≤2 | 1 (reference) |
4-6 | 0.72 (0.62-0.83) | |||
≥6 | 0.65 (0.54-0.78) | |||
Greenberg et al., 2005[34] | Prospective cohort/8.4 | 7006 M and W | 2 | Caffeinated 0.86 (0.75-0.99) |
First National Health and Nutrition | 2 | Decaffeinated 0.58 (0.34-0.99) | ||
Examination Survey Epidemiologic | Further analysis revealed that the decrease in DM2 risk only applied to those who had lost weight | |||
Follow Up Study | ||||
van Dam et al., 2006[13] | Prospective cohort/10 | 88259 W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
Nurses' Health Study II | 1 | 0.87 (0.73-1.03) | ||
2-3 | 0.58 (0.49-0.68) | |||
≥4 | 0.53 (0.41-0.68) | |||
Iso et al., 2006[6] | Retrospective cohort/5 | 17413 M and W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
1-2 | 0.93 (0.73-1.19) | |||
≥3 | 0.58 (0.37-0.90) | |||
Pereira et al., 2006[14] | Prospective/11 | 28812 W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
Iowa Women's Study | 1-3 | 1.01 (0.85-1.19) | ||
≥6 | 0.78 (0.61-1.01) | |||
Decaffeinated | 0.67 (0.42-1.08) | |||
Caffeinated | 0.79 (0.59-1.05) | |||
Smith et al., 2006[18] | Prospective/8 | 910 M and W | Never | 1 (reference) |
Rancho Bernardo | Former | 0.36 (0.19-0.68) | ||
Current | 0.38 (0.17-0.87) | |||
Paynter et al., 2006[5] | Prospective/12 | 12204 M and W | ≥4 | M: 0.77 (0.61-0.98) |
ARIC Study | ||||
Schulze et al., 2007[64] | Prospective/7 | 25167 M and W | 150 g/d | 0.96 (0.93-0.99) |
EPIC-Potsdam | ||||
Hamer et al., 2008[35] | Prospective/11.7 | 5823 M and W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
Whitehall II Study | <1 | 0.83 (0.60-1.14) | ||
2-3 | 0.85(0.60-1.20) | |||
>3 | 0.80(0.54-1.18) | |||
Odegaard et al., 2008[65] | Prospective/6 | 36908 M and W | 0 | 1 (reference) |
Singapore Chinese Health Study | 1 | 0.96 (0.86, 1.08) | ||
2-3 | 0.90 (0.79, 1.02) | |||
≥4 | 0.70 (0.53-0.93) |