Trial reportHealth education research2020
Efficacy of Canadian health warning statements on caffeinated energy drinks: an experimental study among young Canadians.
Trial report in Health education research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and characterisation of energy drink consumption in Europe: a systematic review.Public health nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Consumption of energy drinks among youth in Spain: trends and characteristics.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The current study examined the efficacy of health warnings on caffeinated energy drinks (CEDs). Participants aged 12-24 years (n = 2040) completed an online survey where they were asked to recall any existing warning statements on CED products and were randomized to one of 29 experimental warning conditions. Regression models were fitted to examine differences between conditions in product appeal, perceived safety and message recall. Overall, fewer than 30% of participants were able to accurately describe an existing CED product warning. Experimental findings indicated that exposure to CEDs with warning labels resulted in greater recall. Warnings on the back of CED cans featuring large font, a border, and a 'caution' heading resulted in significantly greater recall (P < 0.05 for all). Front-of-package 'High source of caffeine' labels resulted in greater recall than a quantitative description (P < 0.001); caffeine labels generally elicited lower product appeal (P < 0.001) and perceived safety (P = 0.002) ratings vs. no caffeine labels, and the qualitative caffeine statement elicited lower perceived safety ratings than the quantitative statement (P = 0.02). Existing warning statements in Canada have low levels of awareness. Warnings on CEDs could be enhanced to increase the salience of messages, with greater impact from clear, descriptive, front-of-package 'High source of caffeine' labels.
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.