Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25214391›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2014

Substances used and prevalence rates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy subjects.

Andreas G Franke, Christiana Bagusat, Sebastian Rust, Alice Engel, Klaus Lieb

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Buzzed before bedtime: hidden harms of late day caffeine consumption.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Personalizing neuromodulation.International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas G FrankeDepartment of Social Work and Education, University of Neubrandenburg, University of Applied Sciences, Brodaer Str. 2, 17033, Neubrandenburg, Germany, franke@hs-nb.de.
Christiana Bagusat
Sebastian Rust
Alice Engel
Klaus Lieb
University Medical Centre Mannheim · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DENeubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacological "cognitive enhancement" (CE) is defined as the use of any psychoactive drug with the purpose of enhancing cognition, e.g. regarding attention, concentration or memory by healthy subjects. Substances commonly used as CE drugs can be categorized into three groups of drugs: (1) over-the-counter (OTC) drugs such as coffee, caffeinated drinks/energy drinks, caffeine tablets or Ginkgo biloba; (2) drugs being approved for the treatment of certain disorders and being misused for CE: drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) such as the stimulants methylphenidate (MPH, e.g. Ritalin(®)) or amphetamines (AMPH, e.g. Attentin(®) or Adderall(®)), to treat sleep disorders such as modafinil or to treat Alzheimer's disease such as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors; (3) illicit drugs such as illicit AMPH, e.g. "speed", ecstasy, methamphetamine (crystal meth) or others. Evidence from randomized placebo-controlled trials shows that the abovementioned substances have limited pro-cognitive effects as demonstrated, e.g. regarding increased attention, increased cognitive speed or shortening of reaction times, but on the same time poses considerable safety risks on the consumers. Prevalence rates for the use of CE drugs among healthy subjects show a broad range from less than 1 % up to more than 20 %. The range in prevalence rates estimates results from several factors which are chosen differently in the available survey studies: type of subjects (students, pupils, special professions, etc.), degree of anonymity in the survey (online, face-to-face, etc.), definition of CE and substances used/misused for CE, which are assessed (OTC drugs, prescription, illicit drugs) as well as time periods of use (e.g. ever, during the past year/month/week, etc.). A clear and comprehensive picture of the drugs used for CE by healthy subjects and their adverse events and safety risks as well as comprehensive and comparable international data on the prevalence rates of CE among healthy subjects are of paramount importance for informing policy makers and healthcare professionals about CE.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System StimulantsCognitionDrug UsersHumansNonprescription DrugsPrescription DrugsPrevalenceSubstance-Related DisordersCentral Nervous System StimulantsNonprescription DrugsPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID25214391
OpenAlexW2094975331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.