Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 439

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 access
Wikoff, Daniele, Welsh, Brian T., Henderson, Rayetta, Brorby, Gregory P., Britt, Janice, Myers, Esther, Goldberger, Jeffrey, Lieberman, Harris R., O'Brien, Charles, Peck, Jennifer, Tenenbein, Milton, Weaver, Connie, Harvey, Seneca, Urban, Jonathan, Doepker, Candace·2017·Food and Chemical Toxicology
DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.002

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 439

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)
DOI
10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.002
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

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.