Talk:Health effects of tea

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Health effects of tea article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Health effects of tea. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Health effects of tea at the Reference desk.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink: Beverages High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Beverages Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Dietary Supplements High‑importance

	Health effects of tea is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gracellawson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent umbrella reviews

There have been 3 recent umbrella reviews published on the health effects of tea [1], [2], [3]. However, they are not really telling us anything new other than what is already cited on the Wikipedia article so I just leave them here for now. Based on what I have seen there are few clinical trials on this topic, most of the data is coming from observational studies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China study: tea drinking delays biological ageing

I'm not an expert, so don't know what to make of it.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00273-0/fulltext

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary of results from two cohort studies, a low quality of evidence per WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Unusable. Zefr (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese research researching Chinese thing == woo. But since it's primary research in a backwater journal and not WP:MEDRS it needn't trouble Wikipedia editors. Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about health benefits

We have a multi-sourced section on clinical research under the subhead By condition where peer-assessed reviews, including Cochrane reports, are used, with the section leading to the conclusion that there are no health effects of drinking tea (other than a possible caffeine effect). By MOS:LEAD, we should state such absence of effect in the lead.

At best it is reported as "Possibly Effective" for some conditions on the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database scale.(ref: Medline). Temporary note (28Jul24) while this is under discussion, delete later: the Medline Black Tea source cited says "[Black tea] is also used for headache, both low and high blood pressure, preventing Parkinson disease, depression, dementia, stroke, and many other conditions, but there is no good scientific evidence to support many of these uses. ... Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database rates effectiveness based on scientific evidence according to the following scale: Effective, Likely Effective, Possibly Effective, Possibly Ineffective, Likely Ineffective, Ineffective, and Insufficient Evidence to Rate", and lists a number of conditions it is Possibly Effective for.

The highlighted section above was written by Pol098. Although MedlinePlus comes from a reliable source (NLM/NIH), it is not sufficient by itself to emphasize in the lead. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming at this with no opinion (I came to the article for information, a user of Wikipedia, not an expert). I found in the introduction that a source was being cited inaccurately, and edited the text to reflect the source more accurately - this is what Wikipedia does, it uses sources, not people's information or knowledge. I have noted that there are quite a lot of articles coming up in Medscape reporting possible benefits from tea and coffee. It would seem appropriate for the lead to acknowledge that there is some evidence from sane sources suggesting health effects, very much a work in progress - it is quite wrong to cite a source such as the Medline Black Tea article, then misquote what it says to support a viewpoint. Disclosure: my take on this so far? From multiple Medscape emails, and what I have looked up, I try to drink both coffee and tea; either moderately helpful, or just a harmless form of hydration.

"Although MedlinePlus comes from a reliable source (NLM/NIH), it is not sufficient by itself to emphasize in the lead." It's arguably sufficient to mention in the lead, emphasise is a bit loaded.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying wording "evidence [for benefit] has been classified at best as "Possibly Effective"; there is no good scientific evidence of it being "Likely Effective" to support any therapeutic uses.[1]" This summarises source more accurately. Opinions? Pol098 (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the stronger peer-reviewed sources in the 'By conditions' section to make a conclusion, which collectively lead to: "there is no good scientific evidence to support any therapeutic uses."

Trying to explain the "possibly" or "likely" effects is futile because those terms imply clinical research to date is inconclusive - see WP:MEDASSESS. Wait for other editors to assess and comment on how the lead section should be stated, if different from this version. Zefr (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general the right approach is to get the body text right, and then see about what needs to appear in the lede. We don't want to bomb it. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]