ArticleJournal of nutrition and metabolism2022
Knowledge, Consumption Pattern, and Adverse Effects of Energy Drinks among Asian Population: A Cross-Sectional Analysis from Malaysia.
Article in Journal of nutrition and metabolism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Energy Drink Consumption Patterns, Behavioral Risks and Health Knowledge Among University Students in Beirut, Lebanon: An Updated Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Energy Drinks and Arrhythmias in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Narrative Review of the Last Decade.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Energy drinks in Tamale: Understanding youth perceptions, consumption patterns, and related factors.PloS one · 2024Article
- Soft and energy drinks consumption and associated factors in Saudi adults: a national cross-sectional study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The frequent expansion of the energy drinks (EDs) market has caused an extensive increase in the consumption of EDs, especially among younger populations. However, the lack of knowledge on EDs and their perceived beneficial effects could lead to excessive EDs consumption, which is strongly associated with serious side effects. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and perceived beneficial effects of EDs consumers and determine the consumption patterns and side effects experienced by different EDs consumers among the Malaysian population. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Malaysia from February to April 2021. A structured and validated questionnaire, consisting of 5 sections with 46 items, was distributed online. Only 515 out of 591 invited participants agreed to participate in the study. Descriptive and inferential analysis were done using SPSS. Results: The median age of participants was 23 ± 7.3 years. The majority of participants (65%) were unaware of the active ingredients of EDs, and approximately 40% of them had no idea that EDs contain caffeine. The main reason for consuming EDs was to stay awake (43%), and Red Bull was the most preferred brand (57%). Lack of rest (57%), headache (53%), and nervousness (49%) were the most experienced side effects. A significant difference was observed between consumption patterns and knowledge and perceived beneficial effects ( Conclusion: ED consumers in Malaysia were found to have limited knowledge on EDs. Therefore, attention should be drawn to the Ministry of Health regarding the significant side effects such as palpitation and nervousness experienced by ED consumers. Hence, awareness ought to be raised by adopting regulations or policies to regulate the sales and warning labels of EDs in Malaysia.
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.