Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Clinical importance of caffeine dependence and abuse.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Clinical importance of caffeine dependence and abuse.
Author N Ogawa,H Ueki,
Country
Year 2007
Numbers

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


Extraction Form: Acute Toxicity - Study Design Details
Arms
No arms have been defined in this extraction form.

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Refid 17472594
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? Acute
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? to report on 2 cases of caffeine dependent or abuse, consultation, computed tomography , magnetic resonance imaging examination and electroencephalography
  • 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) case 1: family history taken, consumption self reported, consultation, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging exam, electroencephalography; case 2: consumption self reported, consultation, cardiograph, hemobiochemical exam, cephalic computed tomography and electroencephalogram. Authors used the DSM-IV to diagnose substance dependence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) computed tomography
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately). blood work (hemobiochemical exam)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately) application of diagnostic statistics manual IV criteria for diagnosis of dependence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Clinical Clinical
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Physiological Physiological
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the study design? Case report
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Randomized or Non-Randomized?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? Both
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Optional: Name of Method or short description Described above
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general) Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee Coffee
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Chocolate
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Energy drinks Energy drinks
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Gum
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Medicine/Supplement Medicine/Supplement
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Soda
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Tea Tea
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Measured
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self-report Self-report
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Children
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Adolescents
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Adults Adults
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Pregnant Women
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.) none
  • 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) only described as medical history (no other drug use or history of dependence)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors). case 1: 59 year old man; no family history; no significant abnormality was noted in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalography. After removing caffeine from diet, 10 year since first visit, no recurrence of manic state; case 2: 40 year old female; tachycardia on cardiograph, no significant findings in hemobiochemical exam, computed tomography or electroencephalogram
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did the authors perform a dose-response analysis (or trend/related analysis)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the authors's observations re: trend analysis?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the author's conclusions? case 1: based on history and current symptoms, the authors strongly suspected he had secondary mania resulting from caffeine intoxication due to chronic consumption of energy drink. Regarding DSMIV substance dependence: only tolerance, and intake over longer time reported hence 3 of 7 criteria could not be satisfied, but due to inability to stop use (1/4 additional criteria) was diagnosed with caffeine abuse. case 2:Based on her history and current symptoms, the authors strongly suspected she had caffeine intoxication due to high consumption of caffeine preparation. Her tachycardia, palpitation, feeling of heat in cheeks, rushing of blood to head, sleep disorder rand absence of calmness, strong feelings of anxiety satisfied DSM IV diagnostic criteria for caffeine intoxication and 3/7 criteria diagnosed with substance dependence.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does the exposure (dose) need to be standardized to the SR? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest). Authors did report metric for case 2, but for case 1 reported 7-8 bottles; using our calculation and assuming a 8oz bottle = 8 bottles X 80 mg = 640mg/day,
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List all the endpoint(s) followed by the dose (mg) which will be used in comparison to Nawrot.  Characterize value as LOAEL/NOAEL, etc. if possible.  1365-1450mg/day = LOAEL; tachycardia,flush, cold sweats, anxiety,agitation,sleep disturbance and diagnosis of substance abuse ≥ 640mg/day= LOAEL; euphoria,mania, talkative, hyperactivity, anxiety, sleep disorder, diagnosis of substance abuse
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot. These were self reported so confidence in doses are limited, these were also high dose chronic exposure
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the importance of the study with respect to the adverseness of the outcome? Important
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
No baseline characteristics have been defined for this extraction form.



Results & Comparisons

No Results found.
Adverse Events
Arm or Total Title Description Comments

Quality Dimensions
No quality dimensions were specified.

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.