ArticleNutrition reviews2014
Executive summary of NIH workshop on the Use and Biology of Energy Drinks: Current Knowledge and Critical Gaps.
Article in Nutrition reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Exploring the Role of Caffeine Use in Adult-ADHD Symptom Severity of US Army Soldiers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Dietary behaviors and poor sleep quality among young adult women: watch that sugary caffeine!Sleep health · 2020Article
- The Dietary Supplement Label Database: Recent Developments and Applications.The Journal of nutrition · 2018Article
- Energy and sports drinks in children and adolescents.Paediatrics & child health · 2017Article
- Water intake: validity of population assessment and recommendations.European journal of nutrition · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sales of energy drinks in the United States reached $12.5 billion in 2012. Emergency department visits related to consumption of these products have increased sharply, and while these numbers remain small relative to product sales, they raise important questions regarding biological and behavioral effects. Although some common ingredients of energy drinks have been extensively studied (e.g., caffeine, B vitamins, sugars, inositol), data on other ingredients (e.g., taurine) are limited. Summarized here are data presented elsewhere in this issue on the prevalence and patterns of caffeine-containing energy drink use, the effects of these products on alertness, fatigue, cognitive functions, sleep, mood, homeostasis, as well as on exercise physiology and metabolism, and the biological mechanisms mediating the observed effects. There are substantial data on the effects of some energy drink ingredients, such as caffeine and sugars, on many of these outcomes; however, even for these ingredients many controversies and gaps remain, and data on other ingredients in caffeine-containing energy drinks, and on ingredient interactions, are sparse. This summary concludes with a discussion of critical gaps in the data and potential next steps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.