ArticleBiology2025
Caffeine Supplementation Is Beneficial for the Pulling Performance of Indoor Tug-of-War Athletes.
Article in Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of caffeine supplementation, carbohydrate mouth rinsing, and combined caffeine supplementation with carbohydrate mouth rinsing on the pulling performance and ratings of perceived exertion in indoor tug-of-war athletes. Eighteen tug-of-war athletes were recruited as participants. They underwent four supplementation protocols in a double-blind, single-factor, repeated-measures design: caffeine supplementation (CAF), carbohydrate solution mouth rinsing (CHO), combined caffeine supplementation with carbohydrate mouth rinsing (CAF-CHO), and a placebo (PLA). Each participant performed a maximal pulling test at 80% of their maximum pulling force, and the duration was recorded. Ratings of perceived exertion were also assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0 for Windows, and effect sizes (ES) were calculated. The main findings were as follows: (1) The CAF-CHO group showed a significantly longer pulling duration than the PLA and CHO groups (165.0 ± 69.2 s vs. 137.4 ± 48.9 s vs. 135.6 ± 66.6 s). (2) The CAF group also demonstrated a significantly longer pulling duration than the CHO group (162.0 ± 14.1 s vs. 135.6 ± 66.6 s). (3) Both the CAF-CHO and CAF groups exhibited large effect sizes (ω
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.