Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27664111›Full record

Trial reportPsychopharmacology2017

Electro-physiological changes in the brain induced by caffeine or glucose nasal spray.

K De Pauw, B Roelands, J Van Cutsem, U Marusic, T Torbeyns, R Meeusen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. International society of sports nutrition position stand: caffeine and exercise performance.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2021
    Review
  11. Caffeine and Exercise: What Next?Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019
    Review
  12. Administration of Caffeine in Alternate Forms.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018
    Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

K De PauwResearch Group Human Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
B RoelandsResearch Group Human Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
J Van CutsemResearch Group Human Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
U MarusicInstitute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre of Koper, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia.
T TorbeynsResearch Group Human Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
R MeeusenResearch Group Human Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium. rmeeusen@vub.ac.be.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BEFund for Scientific Research · BEJames Cook University · AUUniversity of Primorska · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA direct link between the mouth cavity and the brain for glucose (GLUC) and caffeine (CAF) has been established. The aim of this study is to determine whether a direct link for both substrates also exist between the nasal cavity and the brain.

methodsTen healthy male subjects (age 22 ± 1 years) performed three experimental trials, separated by at least 2 days. Each trial included a 20-s nasal spray (NAS) period in which solutions placebo (PLAC), GLUC, or CAF were provided in a double-blind, randomized order. During each trial, four cognitive Stroop tasks were performed: two familiarization trials and one pre- and one post-NAS trial. Reaction times and accuracy for different stimuli (neutral, NEUTR; congruent, CON; incongruent INCON) were determined. Electroencephalography was continuously measured throughout the trials. During the Stroop tasks pre- and post-NAS, the P300 was assessed and during NAS, source localization was performed using standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: NAS activated the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). CAF-NAS also increased θ and β activity in frontal cortices. Furthermore, GLUC-NAS increased the β activity within the insula. GLUC-NAS also increased the P300 amplitude with INCON (P = 0.046) and reduced P300 amplitude at F3-F4 and P300 latency at CP1-CP2-Cz with NEUTR (P = 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). The existence of nasal bitter and sweet taste receptors possibly induce these brain responses.

conclusionGreater cognitive efficiency was observed with GLUC-NAS. CAF-NAS activated cingulate, insular, and sensorymotor cortices, whereas GLUC-NAS activated sensory, cingulate, and insular cortices. However, no effect on the Stroop task was found.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalBrainBrain MappingCaffeineDouble-Blind MethodElectroencephalographyGlucoseHumansMaleNasal SpraysReaction TimeStroop TestYoung AdultCaffeineGlucoseNasal SpraysAttentionEEGERP P300sLORETASource localizationStroop

Identifiers

PMID27664111
OpenAlexW2522299271

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.