Trial reportEuropean journal of nutrition2026
Comparable improvements in selective, but not sustained, attention in response to a multi-ingredient nootropic formulation when compared with caffeine.
Trial report in European journal of nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe ergogenic effects of caffeine on cognitive performance are largely restricted to improved alertness and enhanced attention and do not typically extend to other cognitive domains. In contrast, plant extracts and phytochemicals exert broader cognitive performance benefits and, when combined together, may provide synergistic effects.
methodsIn a repeated-measures, double-blinded, randomised crossover design, 26 healthy adults completed a cognitive assessment battery 60, 180 and 300 min after ingesting a microcrystalline fibre placebo (PLA), 150 mg caffeine (CAFF) or a multi-ingredient nootropic formulation (NOOT).
resultsSystolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly higher with CAFF compared to NOOT and PLA (P < 0.001). Negative PANAS scores were also significantly higher with CAFF compared to PLA (P = 0.039) and NOOT (P = 0.033). Arrow flanker correct response reaction times were significantly quicker with CAFF (P = 0.009) and NOOT (P = 0.012) compared with PLA. Similarly, Stroop correct response reaction times were significantly quicker with CAFF (P = 0.017) and NOOT (P = 0.039) compared to PLA. RVIP response accuracy was significantly higher with CAFF compared to NOOT and PLA (P < 0.001 for both).
conclusionData demonstrate that the multi-ingredient nootropic displayed comparable improvements in selective attention and executive function to caffeine without the negative impact upon blood pressure and subjective mood. However, improvements in sustained attention observed in response to caffeine were not present. Collectively, these data suggest multi-ingredient nootropic formulations have efficacy in improving distinct components of cognitive function, likely dependent on the specific formulation and dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4AB5V (01.08.2025) retrospectively registered.
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.