Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Caffeine expectancies influence the subjective and behavioral effects of caffeine.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Caffeine expectancies influence the subjective and behavioral effects of caffeine.
Author PT Harrell,LM Juliano,
Country
Year 2009
Numbers

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


Extraction Form: Behavior - Design Details - INCLUDED Studies
Arms
No arms have been defined in this extraction form.

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Refid 19760283
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? Behavior
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? This study investigated the independent and interactive effects of caffeine pharmacology and expected effects of caffeine on performance and subjective 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) Folgers decaffeinated coffee (22 g) was prepared with 500 ml of water using a drip coffee maker. Independent laboratory analysis indicated that this coffee typically contains approximately 11 mg of caffeine per 12 oz serving (University of Florida College of Medicine Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida, USA). Based on prior randomization and in double-blind fashion, the experimenter added 28 ml of solution that was either a 1:10 mixture of caffeine anhydrous (Sigma-Aldrich Foundation, St Louis, Missouri, USA) and water (i.e., 280 mg caffeine) or flattened tonic water (0 mg caffeine). On the experimental day, participants provided a saliva sample, and then completed self-report measures (task–specific caffeine expectancies, coffee urge, profile of mood states (POMS), caffeine withdrawal, and negative somatic effects) and the RVIP and finger tapping tasks. They were then given a 12-ounce cup of coffee that contained either 280 mg caffeine or placebo.Caffeine dose was crossed with varying instructions that the coffee would either enhance or impair performance in a 2×2 factorial design. Self-report measures included a 28-item questionnaire assessing demographic information and a 16-item caffeine exposure questionnaire that assessed total daily exposure to caffeine (in milligrams). Three measures all using 5-point Likert scales from "0" ("Not at all") to "4" ("Extremely") were administered throughout the study: (1) profile of mood states–short form, a 30-item measure of mood (Curran 1995; McNair et al. 1992) with six factors: tension–anxiety, depression–dejection, anger–hostility, vigor–activity, fatigue–inertia, and confusion–bewilderment (confusion–bewilderment was not analyzed due to poor internal consistency, i.e., Cronbach alpha = 0.58); (2) caffeine withdrawal symptom questionnaire (CWSQ), the sum of 23-item reflective of caffeine withdrawal (e.g., headache, fatigue, and irritability; alpha=0.88); and (3) negative somatic effects, the sum of the following ten self-reported symptoms: headache, blurred vision, flu-like feelings, heavy feelings in arms and legs, upset stomach, nausea/vomiting, muscle pain/stiffness/aches, hot or cold spells, jittery, and rapid heartbeat (alpha=0.81). A 3-item coffee urge measure derived from the questionnaire of smoking urges (Kozlowski et al. 1996) was used to assess urge to consume coffee using a 7-point Likert scale from "1" ("Strongly disagree") to "7" ("Strongly agree") (alpha=0.92).
  • 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) tension-anxiety
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Clinical
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Physiological
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other
  • 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 POMS questionnaire
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general) Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Chocolate
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Energy drinks
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Gum
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Medicine/Supplement
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Soda
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Tea
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Measured Measured
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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.) placebo vs. 280 mg caffeine
  • 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) None listed
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors). There were no significant caffeine dose main effects for any of the subjective measures.
  • 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? There were no significant main effects for caffeine dose on subjective outcomes. This could be a result of decaffeinated coffee producing effects similar to caffeinated coffee due to conditioned effects and/or expectancy effects as all participants were exposed to coffee and were told that the coffee was caffeinated (e.g., Flaten and Blumenthal 1999; Mikalsen et al. 2001)
  • 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? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest).
  • 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.  tension-anxiety NOAEL = 280 mg depression-dejection NOAEL = 280 mg anger-hostility NOAEL = 280 mg fatigue-inertia NOAEL = 280 mg
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot. Only one exposure level (280 mg) was included in the experimental design
  • 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.