Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Single tonic-clonic seizure after energy drink 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 Single tonic-clonic seizure after energy drink abuse.
Author RS Calabrò,D Italiano,G Gervasi,P Bramanti,
Country
Year 2012
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 22370117
  • 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)? Case report of epileptic seizure in 20 year old man secondary to chronic energy drink intake
  • 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) 20 year old man presented with a witnessed tonic clonic seizure, 1 hour after episode, normal except confusion (self report he drank 4-6 cans Red Bull daily = 320-480mg/d) denied risk factors for seizure: sleep deprivation, fevers, infections, illicit drugs
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) blood work = normal
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately)
  • 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
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Chocolate
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Energy drinks Energy drinks
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Gum
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Medicine/Supplement
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Soda
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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 case report
  • 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) family history (absence of pre-disposition to seizures and no head trauma ), no drug use confirmed through urinalysis/tox report
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors). 20 year old man presented with a witnessed tonic clonic seizure, 1 hour after episode, normal except confusion (self report he drank 4-6 cans Red Bull daily = 320-480mg/d)denied risk factors for seizure: sleep deprivation, fevers, infections, illicit drugs. His urinalysis, toxicology screen and blood work confirmed no other drugs in the system. An EEG confirmed the need for treatment (sharp waves in his temporal region bilaterally), after one month of treatment the patient was seen, and treatment was gradually discontinued. At a two year follow up no other seizures were reported.
  • 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? believe this is the first case report of an epileptic seizure secondary to chronic energy drink use
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? none reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? none reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does the exposure (dose) need to be standardized to the SR? Multiple metrics
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest). Red bull (4-6 cans)x80mg/can = 320-480 mg/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.  320-480mg/day, confusion and epileptic seizure
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot.
  • 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.