Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31317857›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2019

Caffeinated energy drinks: adverse event reports to the US Food and Drug Administration and the National Poison Data System, 2008 to 2015.

André O Markon, Olivia E Jones, Cecile M Punzalan, Peter Lurie, Beverly Wolpert

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Pediatric Exposures Associated with Caffeine Energy Products Reported to United States Poison Centers, 2011-2023.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

André O MarkonCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Analytics and Outreach, Division of Public Health Informatics and Analytics, Harvey W. Wiley Building (CPK 1), 5001 Campus Drive, 2C-103, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Olivia E JonesCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Analytics and Outreach, Division of Public Health Informatics and Analytics, Harvey W. Wiley Building (CPK 1), 5001 Campus Drive, 2C-103, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Cecile M PunzalanCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Analytics and Outreach, Division of Public Health Informatics and Analytics, Harvey W. Wiley Building (CPK 1), 5001 Campus Drive, 2C-103, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Peter LurieCenter for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, USA.
Beverly WolpertCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Analytics and Outreach, Division of Public Health Informatics and Analytics, Harvey W. Wiley Building (CPK 1), 5001 Campus Drive, 2C-103, College Park, MD 20740, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe and compare caffeinated energy drink adverse event (AE) report/exposure call data from the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) and the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS).

designCross-sectional.

settingData were evaluated from US-based CAERS reports and NPDS exposure calls, including report/exposure call year, age, sex, location, single v. multiple product consumption, outcome, symptom, intentionality (NPDS only), report type, product name (CAERS only).

participantsThe analysis defined participants (cases) by the number of caffeinated energy drink products indicated in each AE report or exposure call. Single product cases included 357 from CAERS and 12 822 from NPDS; multiple product cases included 153 from CAERS and 931 from NPDS.

resultsCAERS v. NPDS single product cases were older and more frequently indicated serious symptoms. Multiple v. single product consumers were older in both. In CAERS, unlike NPDS, most multiple product consumers were female. CAERS single v. multiple product reports cited higher proportions of life-threatening events, but less often indicated hospitalization and serious events. NPDS multiple v. single product cases involved fewer ≤5-year-olds and were more often intentional.

conclusionsDespite limitations, both data sources contribute to post-market surveillance and improve understanding of public health concerns.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overCaffeineCentral Nervous System StimulantsChildCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEnergy DrinksFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPoison Control CentersCaffeineCentral Nervous System StimulantsAdverse eventCaffeinated energy drinkCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting SystemNational Poison Data System

Identifiers

PMID31317857
PMCPMC10260441

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.