Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31574901›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2019

Effect of Caffeine Supplementation on Sports Performance Based on Differences Between Sexes: A Systematic Review.

Juan Mielgo-Ayuso, Diego Marques-Jiménez, Ignacio Refoyo, Juan Del Coso, Patxi León-Guereño, Julio Calleja-González

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Juan Mielgo-AyusoDepartment of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Valladolid, 42004 Soria, Spain. juanfrancisco.mielgo@uva.es.ORCID 0000-0002-6554-4602
Diego Marques-JiménezAcademy Department, Deportivo Alavés SAD, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. dmarques001@ikasle.ehu.eus.
Ignacio RefoyoDepartment of Sports, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences (INEF), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain. ignacio.refoyo@upm.es.
Juan Del CosoCentre for Sport Studies. Rey Juan Carlos University, 28943 Fuenlabrada, Spain. juandelcosogarrigos@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5785-984X
Patxi León-GuereñoFaculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Campus of Donostia-San Sebastián, 20012 San Sebastián, Guipúzcoa, Spain. patxi.leon@deusto.es.ORCID 0000-0003-2772-9128
Julio Calleja-GonzálezLaboratory of Human Performance, Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Education, Sports Section, University of the Basque Country, 01007 Vitoria, Spain. julio.calleja.gonzalez@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most studies that have shown the positive effects of caffeine supplementation on sports performance have been carried out on men. However, the differences between sexes are evident in terms of body size, body composition, and hormonal functioning, which might cause different outcomes on performance for the same dosage of caffeine intake in men vs. women. The main aim of this systematic review was to analyze and compare the effects of caffeine intake between men and women on sports performance to provide a source of knowledge to sports practitioners and coaches, especially for those working with women athletes, on the use of caffeine as an ergogenic aid. A structured search was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases until 28 July 2019. The search included studies in which the effects of caffeine supplementation on athletic performance were compared between sexes and to an identical placebo situation (dose, duration and timing). No filters were applied for participants' physical fitness level or age. A total of 254 articles were obtained in the initial search. When applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final sample was 10 articles. The systematic review concluded that four investigations (100% of the number of investigations on this topic) had not found differences between sexes in terms of caffeine supplementation on aerobic performance and 3/3 (100%) on the fatigue index. However, four out of seven articles (57.1%) showed that the ergogenicity of caffeine for anaerobic performance was higher in men than women. In particular, it seems that men are able to produce more power, greater total weight lifted and more speed with the same dose of caffeine than women. In summary, caffeine supplementation produced a similar ergogenic benefit for aerobic performance and the fatigue index in men and women athletes. Nevertheless, the effects of caffeine to produce more power, total weight lifted and to improve sprint performance with respect to a placebo was higher in men than women athletes despite the same dose of caffeine being administered. Thus, the ergogenic effect of acute caffeine intake on anaerobic performance might be higher in men than in women.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdultCaffeineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesPhysical EnduranceSex FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCaffeinePerformance-Enhancing Substancesmenstrual cyclepowerrecoverysprint performancestrength

Identifiers

PMID31574901
PMCPMC6835847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.