Trial reportClinical pharmacology in drug development2018
A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Two-Period Crossover Pharmacokinetic Trial Comparing Green Coffee Bean Extract-A Botanically Sourced Caffeine-With a Synthetic USP Control.
Trial report in Clinical pharmacology in drug development, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Conventional Methods to Innovation: Caffeine and Chlorogenic Acid Extraction and Quantification in the Rise of Smart and Green Techniques-A Systematic Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Evaluation of Human Intervention Studies to Unravel the Bioavailability of Hydroxycinnamic Acids.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Study of the Antioxidant Effects of Coffee Phenolic Metabolites on C6 Glioma Cells Exposed to Diesel Exhaust Particles.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Bioequivalence of Emulsified Isoflurane With a New Formulation of Emulsion: A Single-Center, Single-Dose, Double-Blinded, Randomized, Two-Period Crossover Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coffee is a primary dietary source of the chlorogenic acids (CGAs) of phenolic compounds. Coffee contains caffeine and other phytonutrients, including CGAs. Caffeine on its own has been well characterized and descried pharmacokinetically in the literature, less so for CGAs. The purpose of this double-blind crossover study was to determine the comparative pharmacokinetics of CGAs with caffeine (natural extract) with synthetic caffeine (US Pharmacopeia [USP] standard). Sixteen healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to take 1 dose of product 1, 60 mg of botanically sourced caffeine from 480 mg of green coffee bean extract, or product 2, 60 mg of synthetic USP caffeine, with 5 days between. Blood analysis was done to determine the levels of CGA compounds, more specifically 3-, 4-, and 5-caffeoylquinic acid (CQA), and serum caffeine. The natural caffeine extract exhibited mean peak concentrations (C
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.