The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children
Open accessAbstract
To date, one of the most heavily cited assessments of caffeine safety in the peer-reviewed literature is that issued by Health Canada (Nawrot et al., 2003). Since then, >10,000 papers have been published related to caffeine, including hundreds of reviews on specific human health effects; however, to date, none have compared the wide range of topics evaluated by Nawrot et al. (2003). Thus, as an update to this foundational publication, we conducted a systematic review of data on potential adverse effects of caffeine published from 2001 to June 2015. Subject matter experts and research team participants developed five PECO (population, exposure, comparator, and outcome) questions to address five types of outcomes (acute toxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, bone and calcium effects, behavior, and development and reproduction) in four healthy populations (adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children) relative to caffeine intake doses determined not to be associated with adverse effects by Health Canada (comparators: 400 mg/day for adults [10 g for lethality], 300 mg/day for pregnant women, and 2.5 mg/kg/day for children and adolescents). The a priori search strategy identified >5000 articles that were screened, with 381 meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for the five outcomes (pharmacokinetics was addressed contextually, adding 46 more studies). Data were extracted by the research team and rated for risk of bias and indirectness (internal and external validity). Selected no- and low-effect intakes were assessed relative to the population-specific comparator. Conclusions were drawn for the body of evidence for each outcome, as well as endpoints within an outcome, using a weight of evidence approach. When the total body of evidence was evaluated and when study quality, consistency, level of adversity, and magnitude of response were considered, the evidence generally supports that consumption of up to 400 mg caffeine/day in healthy adults is not associated with overt, adverse cardiovascular effects, behavioral effects, reproductive and developmental effects, acute effects, or bone status. Evidence also supports consumption of up to 300 mg caffeine/day in healthy pregnant women as an intake that is generally not associated with adverse reproductive and developmental effects. Limited data were identified for child and adolescent populations; the available evidence suggests that 2.5 mg caffeine/kg body weight/day remains an appropriate recommendation. The results of this systematic review support a shift in caffeine research to focus on characterizing effects in sensitive populations and establishing better quantitative characterization of interindividual variability (e.g., epigenetic trends), subpopulations (e.g., unhealthy populations, individuals with preexisting conditions), conditions (e.g., coexposures), and outcomes (e.g., exacerbation of risk-taking behavior) that could render individuals to be at greater risk relative to healthy adults and healthy pregnant women. This review, being one of the first to apply systematic review methodologies to toxicological assessments, also highlights the need for refined guidance and frameworks unique to the conduct of systematic review in this field.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Mozaffarian, D., Benjamin, E. J., Go, A. S., Arnett, D. K., Blaha, M. J., Cushman, M., Das, S. R., de Ferranti, S., Després, J.-P., Fullerton, H. J., et al. (2016) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000350 · Cited by 6,596
Fredholm, B. B., Bättig, K., Holmén, J., Nehlig, A., & Zvartau, E. E. (1999) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0031-6997(24)01396-6 · Cited by 2,624
Effects of caffeine on human health
Nawrot, P., Jordan, S., Eastwood, J., Rotstein, J., Hugenholtz, A., & Feeley, M. (2003) · Food Additives and Contaminants · doi:10.1080/0265203021000007840 · Cited by 1,199
A Review of Caffeine’s Effects on Cognitive, Physical and Occupational Performance
McLellan, T. M., Caldwell, J. A., & Lieberman, H. R. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.001 · Cited by 840
Self-citationBarone, J. J., & Roberts, H. R. (1996) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/0278-6915(95)00093-3 · Cited by 705
Caffeine: Cognitive and Physical Performance Enhancer or Psychoactive Drug?
Cappelletti, S., Daria, P., Sani, G., & Aromatario, M. (2015) · Current Neuropharmacology · doi:10.2174/1570159x13666141210215655 · Cited by 631
Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine
EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, N. A. A. (. (2015) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4102 · Cited by 613
Beverage caffeine intakes in the U.S.
Mitchell, D. C., Knight, C. A., Hockenberry, J., Teplansky, R., & Hartman, T. J. (2014) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.10.042 · Cited by 565
Coffee, CYP1A2 genotype, and risk of myocardial infarction
Cornelis, M. C., El-Sohemy, A., Kabagambe, E. K., & Campos, H. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.10.1135 · Cited by 490
Cited by
Coffee consumption and health: umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple health outcomes
Poole, R., Kennedy, O. J., Roderick, P., Fallowfield, J. A., Hayes, P. C., & Parkes, J. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j5024 · Cited by 835
International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: Caffeine and Exercise Performance
Guest, N. S., VanDusseldorp, T. A., Nelson, M. T., Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Jenkins, N. D. M., Arent, S. M., Antonio, J., Stout, J. R., Trexler, E. T., et al. (2021) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s12970-020-00383-4 · Cited by 665
Ruiz-Moreno, C., Lara, B., Salinero, J. J., Brito de Souza, D., Ordovás, J. M., & Del Coso, J. (2020) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-019-02167-2 · Cited by 60
Wang, G., Fang, Z.-B., Liu, D.-L., Chu, S.-F., Li, H.-L., & Zhao, H.-X. (2022) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.1008275 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Wikoff, D., Welsh, B. T., Henderson, R., Brorby, G. P., Britt, J., Myers, E., Goldberger, J., Lieberman, H. R., O'Brien, C., Peck, J., Tenenbein, M., Weaver, C., Harvey, S., Urban, J., & Doepker, C.
- Venue
- Food and Chemical Toxicology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- Pt 1
- Pages
- 585-648
- ISSN
- 0278-6915 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2606538969
- Cited by
- 439
- References
- 59
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.002
- The paper
- Wikoff, D., Welsh, B. T., Henderson, R., Brorby, G. P., Britt, J., Myers, E., Goldberger, J., Lieberman, H. R., O'Brien, C., Peck, J., Tenenbein, M., Weaver, C., Harvey, S., Urban, J., & Doepker, C. (2017). Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. Food and Chemical Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.