SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Effects of carbohydrate, caffeine and menthol mouth rinses on exercise performance and ratings of perceived exertion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mouth rinsing with carbohydrate (CHO), caffeine (CAF), or menthol (MEN) is a non-ingestive strategy that may enhance exercise performance and alter ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), but findings remain inconsistent. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared their relative effects. Methods: This prospectively registered review (PROSPERO CRD420261282363) followed PRISMA-NMA. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus were searched to 3 April 2026. Randomized controlled and crossover trials were eligible. RoB 2 and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) were used to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed in Stata 18.0, effects were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs), and rankings were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Fifty-seven studies involving 609 participants were included. The evidence base primarily comprised trained or physically active individuals, and the exercise protocols predominantly involved cycling- or running-based endurance tasks. CAF ranked first for time to exhaustion (SUCRA = 85.1%), work done during a fixed-time test (83.4%), and RPE (74.0%). MEN ranked first for time to complete a fixed amount of work (79.8%) and mean power (77.3%), whereas CHO ranked second across all five outcomes. The NMA showed no statistically significant differences among CHO, CAF, and MEN. Compared with placebo (PLA), CAF (SMD = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.13, 1.01) and CHO (SMD = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.75) significantly prolonged time to exhaustion. CAF (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.86) and CHO (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.60) also significantly increased work done during a fixed-time test. CHO significantly reduced RPE (SMD = -0.14, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.02). No significant effects relative to PLA were observed for time to complete a fixed amount of work or mean power. Conclusion: The relative advantages appeared outcome-specific. CAF showed the most favorable ranking trends for fatigue tolerance, sustained output, and RPE, whereas MEN ranked highest for completion efficiency and mean power. Because CHO, CAF, and MEN did not differ significantly, these rankings should be interpreted probabilistically rather than as evidence of clear superiority. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261282363, identifier CRD420261282363.
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.