Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
Efficacy of caffeine as an ergogenic aid in multiple cycling time trials.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. 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.
- Acute caffeine supplementation and cycling time-trial performance across different task durations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Caffeine on NFL Combine-Like Tests in Undergraduate Students.International journal of exercise science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEvidence that caffeine supplementation is effective to improve performance in cycling time trials has been obtained in single rather than multiple time trials. We investigated whether 5 mg.kg
methodsAfter selection of eligible cyclists and familiarization with the TT4km, thirteen well-trained cyclists participated in a balanced placebo-controlled designed with two caffeine sessions (CAF-1 and CAF-2) and a placebo session. In each session, cyclists performed a baseline TT4km before caffeine, and two supplemented TT4km (50 min and 80 min after supplementation). Relative and absolute reliability were obtained through intraclass coefficient correlation and standard error of the measurement (SEM), respectively. The cyclists' performance responses to caffeine were classified as beneficial, unchanged, and adverse by calculating the change between caffeine and placebo relative to SEM.
resultsCaffeine enhanced performance in the first supplemented TT4km in CAF-1 and CAF-2 (0.5% and 1.8%, respectively), although only CAF-2 was significantly different from placebo (p < 0.001). Analysis with grouped data showed good absolute and relative reliability of caffeine effects within and across days. However, analysis of individual data showed that 38% and 31% of the cyclists changed their classification of responsiveness to caffeine between the supplemented trials across days.
conclusionsDespite the good reliability of caffeine to enhance performance in a single TT4km performed within and across days, individual analysis challenged the use of caffeine supplementation protocols based on grouped data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39673565What 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.