Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24236008›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

To dope or not to dope: neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse among Swiss university students.

Larissa J Maier, Matthias E Liechti, Fiona Herzig, Michael P Schaub

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Modafinil, an atypical CNS stimulant?Advances in pharmacology (San Diego, Calif.) · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Health-Promoting Behavior and Lifestyle Characteristics of Students as a Function of Sex and Academic Level.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Larissa J MaierSwiss Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction, Associated Institute at the University of Zurich and WHO Collaborating Centre, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias E Liechti
Fiona Herzig
Michael P Schaub

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuroenhancement is the use of substances by healthy subjects to enhance mood or cognitive function. The prevalence of neuroenhancement among Swiss university students is unknown. Investigating the prevalence of neuroenhancement among students is important to monitor problematic use and evaluate the necessity of prevention programs. STUDY

aimTo describe the prevalence of the use of prescription medications and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement among Swiss university students.

methodIn this cross-sectional study, students at the University of Zurich, University of Basel, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich were invited via e-mail to participate in an online survey.

resultsA total of 28,118 students were contacted, and 6,275 students completed the survey. Across all of the institutions, 13.8% of the respondents indicated that they had used prescription drugs (7.6%) or drugs of abuse including alcohol (7.8%) at least once specifically for neuroenhancement. The most frequently used prescription drugs for neuroenhancement were methylphenidate (4.1%), sedatives (2.7%), and beta-blockers (1.2%). Alcohol was used for this purpose by 5.6% of the participants, followed by cannabis (2.5%), amphetamines (0.4%), and cocaine (0.2%). Arguments for neuroenhancement included increased learning (66.2%), relaxation or sleep improvement (51.2%), reduced nervousness (39.1%), coping with performance pressure (34.9%), increased performance (32.2%), and experimentation (20%). Neuroenhancement was significantly more prevalent among more senior students, students who reported higher levels of stress, and students who had previously used illicit drugs. Although "soft enhancers", including coffee, energy drinks, vitamins, and tonics, were used daily in the month prior to an exam, prescription drugs or drugs of abuse were used much less frequently.

conclusionsA significant proportion of Swiss university students across most academic disciplines reported neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse. However, these substances are rarely used on a daily basis and more sporadically used prior to exams.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansIllicit DrugsMaleNootropic AgentsPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesPrescription DrugsPrevalenceSelf MedicationStress, PsychologicalStudentsSwitzerlandUniversitiesYoung AdultIllicit DrugsNootropic AgentsPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID24236008
PMCPMC3827185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.