Trial reportJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2026
Acute effects of 3 and 6 mg·Kg
Trial report in Journal of the International Society of Sports 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
backgroundEvidence on the dose, timing, and task specificity of caffeine ingestion in combat-sport athletes remains limited. This study examined the acute effects of 3 and 6 mg·kg
methodsFifteen male boxers who met the Chinese national second-class athlete standard or higher completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Each participant completed placebo (PLA), 3 mg·kg
resultsSignificant condition × time interactions were observed for CMJ, BPU, and isokinetic PT outcomes. During the scheduled 60-min assessment, CAF3 and CAF6 produced higher CMJ jump height, peak power, and relative peak power than PLA, with no significant difference between caffeine doses. For BPU, CAF6 produced higher concentric impulse, concentric mean power, and concentric peak power than PLA during the scheduled 60-min assessment, whereas CAF3 did not differ from PLA. Shoulder flexion and extension PT increased under caffeine conditions at selected time points, without a consistent dose advantage. Knee extension PT showed the clearest dose-specific response, with CAF6 exceeding both PLA and CAF3 during the scheduled 60-min assessment.
conclusionsAcute ingestion of 3 and 6 mg·kg
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.