Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

The impact of alcohol and energy drink consumption on intoxication and risk-taking behavior.



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 The impact of alcohol and energy drink consumption on intoxication and risk-taking behavior.
Author A Peacock,R Bruno,FH Martin,A Carr,
Country
Year 2013
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 23488876
  • 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)? Given the divergent findings regarding AmED-induced intoxication misperception and lack of objective assessment of risk-taking outcomes following AmED consumption, the aims of the present study were to assess the effect of a moderate alcohol and energy drink (ED) dose on: (i) subjective measures of intoxication, and (ii) objective measures of risktaking.
  • 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) Using a placebo-controlled, single-blind, cross-over design, participants (n = 28) attended 4 sessions in which they were administered, in counterbalanced order: 0.5 g/kg alcohol, 3.57 ml/kg ED, AmED, and a placebo beverage. Participants completed the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale and a Subjective Effects Scale at baseline and 30 and 125 minutes postbeverage administration; risk-taking was measured using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).
  • 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) risk-taking behavior
  • 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?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? Objective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Optional: Name of Method or short description Risk-Taking Measures. The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002) is an objective measure of sequential risk-taking operated via Inquisit Version 3.0.6.0 software (Millisecond Software, Seattle, WA). Significant moderate positive correlations have been observed between the BART and self reported real-world risk behaviors, including alcohol and substance use, cigarette use, gambling, aggressive and antisocial behavior, and sexual and driving risk-taking (r = 0.25 to 48; Aklin et al., 2005 Lejuez et al., 2002, 2003a,b). In the present study, participants clicked on a pump to inflate a simulated balloon 1° and accrue 5 cents in a temporary bank. If the balloon was inflated beyond its predetermined break point (all accrued money was lost; if pumping was discontinued prior to the break point, the accrued money was added to a permanent bank. Participants completed 30 balloons, each with a different explosion probability based on a variable ratio schedule (average break point 64 pumps; for details of the algorithm, see Lejuez et al., 2002). Thus, each pump increased the accrued amount of money to be lost while decreasing the relative gain of additional pumps. Random selection of a trial number (1 to 30) at task cessation determined task reimbursement. The primary dependent risk-taking measure was the adjusted average number of balloon pumps (i.e., average number of pumps excluding those trials in which the participant was forced to stop pumping due to balloon explosion). Number of explosions and total earnings were also recorded.
  • 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 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 (energy drink with no caffeine) vs energy drink (Redbull containing 80 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) sex
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors). While there was no significant main effect of Alcohol (p = 0.921, g = 0.01), there was a significant main effect of ED, F(1, 27) = 4.335, p = 0.047, g = 0.28, revealing a small magnitude increase in the adjusted average number of pumps in active (M = 44.5, SD = 40.3) relative to placebo (M = 40.3, SD = 12.8) ED conditions.
  • 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? While there was a significant increase in risk-taking evident in active relative to placebo ED conditions, the magnitude of difference was small. The presence of an ED effect suggests that AmED can increase risk-taking via the ED component. However, the magnitude of effect was small, calling into question the practical implications for ED and AmED consumers. It is not known whether the effects of EDs on risk-taking would increase in magnitude with an increasing ED dose, or, indeed, with an increasing alcohol dose. Engagement in risk-taking behavior was only increased by ED consumption; however, the magnitude of the effect suggests negligible implications for ED and AmED consumers.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? This study was funded by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council Tas Inc. Placebo samples were supplied by Red Bull GmbH.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? N/A
  • 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). 250 ml energy drink = 80 mg caffeine
  • 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.  risk-taking behavior - LOAEL = 80 mg caffeine
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot. single dose effects seen at levels below Nawrot et al.
  • 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.