Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35133717›Full record

ArticleBrain and behavior2022

An on-premise study to investigate the effects of mixing alcohol with caffeinated beverages.

Sean J Johnson, Joris C Verster, Chris Alford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sean J JohnsonCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4641-835X
Joris C VersterDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6455-2096
Chris AlfordPsychological Sciences Research Group, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-6958

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this on-premise study was to determine if mixing alcohol with caffeinated mixers had an impact on objective and subjective intoxication.

methodsThe study was conducted across eight drinking occasions in the City of Bristol, UK. Participants (N = 1041) were recruited outside popular night-time entertainment venues and interviewed regarding their alcohol consumption for that particular evening, including whether or not they had consumed caffeinated beverages with alcohol. Subjective intoxication was rated on an 11-point scale and objective intoxication determined with a breath alcohol test. Depending on their consumption on the night of the interview, participants also reported whether they consumed alcohol mixed with caffeinated mixers or alcohol-only on other consumption occasions.

resultsBetween-subjects analyses found that alcohol-caffeine consumers consumed more alcohol and had higher objective and subjective intoxication than those who consumed alcohol-only. These results remained significant regardless of whether or not they mixed alcohol with caffeinated mixers or consumed alcohol-only on the night of the interview. Within-subject analyses revealed that alcohol-caffeine consumers drank the same or less alcohol on alcohol-caffeine occasions compared to alcohol-only occasions.

conclusionsThese findings provide support that alcohol-caffeine use does not increase overall alcohol consumption, and may be one manifestation of a high risk-taking personality.

Indexed as

Energy DrinksAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesCaffeineEthanolHumansCaffeineEthanolalcoholalcohol consumptionAMEDcaffeineenergy drink

Identifiers

PMID35133717
PMCPMC8933783

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.