Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Self-reported physiological and psychological side-effects of an acute alcohol and energy drink dose.



Key Questions Addressed
1 For [population], is caffeine intake above [exposure dose], compared to intakes [exposure dose] or less, associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Self-reported physiological and psychological side-effects of an acute alcohol and energy drink dose.
Author A Peacock,R Bruno,FH Martin,A Carr,
Country
Year 2014
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Cardiovascular Design
Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? Cardiovascular
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? The aim of the present study was to examine the acute effects of a moderate alcohol and energy drink (ED) dose on self-reported psychological and physiological outcomes.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of the methods as reported by the authors. Information should be extracted based on relevance to the SR (i.e., caffeine related methods) A Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS), consisting of 20 100-mm visual analogue scales (0 mm anchor designated ‘not at all’, 100 mm anchor designated ‘extremely’), was used to assess current perceived physiological state (e.g., ‘headache’, ‘dizziness’); items were derived from previous AmED (alcohol-energy drinks) research by Ferreira et al. (2006). Item scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater intensity of the physiological outcome. The placebo ED dose was 3.57 mL/kg Red Bull_ minus caffeine, taurine, glucuronolactone, inositol, and B vitamin complex content; sugar content was identical for active and placebo beverages (27 g/250 mL). Data collectors, participants, and data analysts were blind to ED administration; only participants and data analysts were blind to alcohol administration. Participants were administered the beverage in two portions served in opaque lidded cups, consuming each portion within a 5-min period. Post-drink administration of the POMS and SSS occurred 30 min and 125 min after initiation of beverage consumption, with the BRS administered at the later time point.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) Heart palpitations
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately). 2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Clinical, physiological, other Physiological
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the study design? Controlled Trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Randomized or Non-Randomized? RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? Subjective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Optional: Name of Method or short description A Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS), consisting of 20 100-mm visual analogue scales (0 mm anchor designated ‘not at all’, 100 mm anchor designated ‘extremely’), was used to assess current perceived physiological state (e.g., ‘headache’, ‘dizziness’); items were derived from previous AmED (alcohol-energy drinks) research by Ferreira et al. (2006). Item scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater intensity of the physiological outcome.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee, Chocolate, energy drink, gum, medicine/supplement, soda, tea, other?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Measured or self reported? Measured
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Children, adolescents, adults, or pregnant included? Adults
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.) energy drink with caffeine vs. decaffeinated energy drink
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models.  Copy from methods) Consumers who self-reported no: (i) significant physical or psychiatric history, (ii) current pregnancy or lactation and (iii) regular current tobacco, medication, or illicit drug use. Volunteers who scored 16 or higher on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001) were excluded. Two participants had missing POMS and SSS data (N = 26) and one participant had missing BRS data (N = 27) due to technical malfunction. Data were analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics 19. POMS subscale and Total Mood Disturbance scores and SSS item ratings were calculated as the change from baseline at each time point (30 and 125 min post-beverage administration) and analyzed using 2 (Alcohol: Active, Placebo) x 2 (ED: Active, Placebo) ANOVAs, with Bonferroni-adjusted follow-up paired sample t-tests. Effect size was calculated using Hedges’ g. To enhance clarity, effects of moderate magnitude (gP0.50) are discussed where p < .100.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? Not mentioned.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Refid 24462484
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? Funding for this study was provided by the Alcohol, Tobacco & other Drug Council (Tas) Inc. Placebo samples for this study were provided by Red Bull GmbH, Austria. These parties had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.