Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Story

Reuters Health story on glaucoma and drinking hot tea skims over study limitations


4 Star



Drinking hot tea linked to lowered glaucoma risk

Our Review Summary

Getty Images

This Reuters story reports on an observational study showing a possible association between drinking caffeinated hot tea and lowering the risk of glaucoma.

The story does a good job describing the study design and the lack of treatment options for glaucoma. It also included comments from two independent sources. However, it fell short by not providing enough perspective on how many limitations can occur with this kind of research.


Why This Matters

Glaucoma is one of the leading causes of blindness in the world and affects over 55 million people globally. Because vision lost to glaucoma can’t be recovered, much of the research focuses on either slowing progression once it is diagnosed, or preventing the disease by identifying and modifying risk factors. Given that the role of caffeine as a risk factor is controversial, well-conducted research that suggests a protective effect of caffeinated tea is newsworthy, though news stories need to be cautious not to overstate the measured benefits.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Tea is widely available and relatively affordable compared to other prepared drinks.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentions that study participants who drank one cup or more of hot caffeinated tea daily “had 74 percent lower odds of having glaucoma” compared to those who don’t drink hot tea.

Our standard response to a statement like this is to ask, “74% lower than what”? A 74% reduction from an already-small number might not be very meaningful. Absolute numbers would have helped–here’s more about how to provide them and why this is important.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Only potential harm to be considered would be those people who respond to this study by abusing caffeinated tea thinking that more consumption might offer more protection from glaucoma. Excess caffeine can have deleterious health effects. Not including this unlikely scenario in the story seems reasonable.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

This was a tough call, as the story does a good job explaining how the research was designed. But it should have been more clear that this was an observational study that can not establish cause and effect. Self-reported dietary information is also notoriously unreliable.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


There was no disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


Two opthalmologists who weren’t involved in the study were interviewed, and we could detect no conflicts of interest.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story does make brief mention of lifestyle, environmental and diet interventions that may influence glaucoma, but could have made it more clear that none of these have been proven to prevent glaucoma.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

Other than water, tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


Although there is existing research investigating the role of caffeine in glaucoma, this study specifically compared the effects of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, tea, and soft drinks on glaucoma. The story makes that clear.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


The story does not appear to rely solely on the news release. It quotes two independent sources not affiliated with the study.

Total Score: 5 of 7 Satisfactory


We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.