Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42591203›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026

Acute caffeine supplementation and resistance exercise performance in female participants: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.

Li Liang, Ming Chen, Bo Qi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Li LiangDepartment of Physical Education, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Ming ChenInstitute of Physical Education, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Bo QiDepartment of Physical Education, Central South University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objectives: Caffeine is a widely studied ergogenic aid, but evidence for its acute effects on resistance exercise performance is primarily derived from male or mixed-sex samples, with scarce data specific to women. Previous women-specific syntheses did not model the multiple dependent outcomes extracted from the same crossover trial, which may have produced overly narrow uncertainty estimates. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and Cochrane Library were systematically searched through 26 April 2026 to include randomized, placebo-controlled trials testing acute, dose-defined caffeine before resistance exercise in female participants or independently extractable female subgroups. Effect sizes were paired Hedges' g and were synthesized separately for six outcome domains using three-level random-effects models with cluster-robust variance estimation: maximal strength, muscular endurance, movement speed, functional strength, functional endurance, and total load. 95% confidence intervals and prediction intervals were reported, and RoB 2 and GRADE were used to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 24 studies were included (23 of which were included in the quantitative synthesis, with 107 effect sizes). Maximal strength showed a small mean effect (g = 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.29; low GRADE); muscular endurance showed a larger mean effect (g = 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.02; low GRADE), but its wide prediction interval and influence diagnostics indicated low reproducibility across protocols; movement speed showed a small, model-based estimate, but cluster-robust inference was uncertain because only three study clusters were available (g = 0.13; CR2 p = 0.072; very low GRADE). The study clusters for functional strength, functional endurance, and total load were too small and were not pooled for inference, so these domains are summarized descriptively. Meta-regressions of caffeine dosage, mean age of participants, and resistance load did not identify reliable moderation. Conclusion: Acute caffeine may slightly improve maximal strength and may benefit muscular endurance in some protocols, but the certainty of evidence is low or very low for most outcomes and prediction intervals indicate limited reproducibility. Current evidence therefore does not support strong recommendations by dosage, age, resistance load, menstrual cycle phase, hormonal status, or habitual caffeine intake. Future trials should report menstrual cycle phase, hormonal contraceptive use, menopausal status, habitual caffeine intake, adverse symptoms, sleep disturbance, blinding integrity, washout duration, and paired/change-score data with within-participant correlations. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/2msf6/overview, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/2MSF6.

Indexed as

caffeinecrossover trialsfemale athletesfemale-specific evidencemuscular endurancemuscular strengthresistance exercisethree-level meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID42591203
PMCPMC13461412

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.