CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Sleep and related disordersSleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

Heterocyclic amphetamine derivatives and caffeine on sleep in man

Open access
Nicholson, AN, Stone, BM·1980·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb05833.xPMC PMC1429858
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Effects of the heterocyclic amphetamine derivatives, pemoline (20 and 40 mg), prolintane hydrochloride (5 and 10 mg), methylphenidate hydrochloride (10 and 20 mg) and fencamfamine hydrochloride (10 and 20 mg), and of caffeine anhydrous (100, 200 and 300 mg) on sleep, were compared with placebo in six young adults (20-31 years) using electroencephalography for sleep measures and analogue scales for subjective assessments of well-being and sleep quality.The study was double-blind.2 No consistent effect was found with pemoline.3 With prolintane there were no changes in sleep latencies, or in slow wave sleep (SWS).Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep was reduced during the first 2 h after sleep onset.4 With methylphenidate and fencamfamine latencies to sleep onset and to stage 3 sleep were unchanged.The higher dose of each drug delayed the first and subsequent REM periods.Both drugs reduced the duration of REM sleep, and the higher dose of each drug reduced the percentage REM sleep.Methylphenidate also reduced total sleep time (TST).There was no evidence of reduced SWS with either drug.Impairment of sleep was reported with each drug.5 With caffeine there were no changes in latencies to sleep onset or to the first REM period, though in one study with 300 mg subsequent REM periods were delayed.Awake activity and drowsy sleep were increased and TST and SWS were decreased.With 300 mg only, REM sleep was decreased though percentage REM sleep was not altered.Impaired sleep was reported with all doses of caffeine.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb05833.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the five studies investigating the dose-response relationship, four reported heightened perceptions of sleep disruption with larger caffeine doses.

    “Of the fi ve studies [25,26,31,35,37] investigating the dose-response relationship, four [25,26,31,35] reported heightened perceptions of sleep disruption with larger caffeine doses.”

    From The effect of caffeine on subsequent sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Results report that participants perceived poorer sleep with caffeine, but not progressively poorer sleep at larger doses. They explicitly say the subjective effect at 200 mg was less pronounced than at both 100 and 300 mg; Table 6 likewise shows no consistent dose-response pattern. This paper cannot establish the citing sentence’s count of four studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Dose-dependent reductions in the duration of N3 sleep and REM sleep were identified, with greater reductions occurring at larger caffeine doses.

    “Dosedependent reductions in the duration of N3 sleep [35,41] and REM sleep [41] were identi fi ed, with greater reductions occurring at larger doses.”

    From The effect of caffeine on subsequent sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Results (page unavailable) report reduced slow-wave sleep at 100, 200 and 300 mg of caffeine, and reduced REM sleep at 300 mg. They do not establish dose-dependent reductions in N3 and REM duration: effects at 200 mg were less marked than at 100 mg, and REM reduction was reported only at 300 mg. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Two high-risk studies presented sleep staging data for only the first portion of the sleep bout without providing context.

    “Two of these studies [35,36] presented sleep staging data for the fi rst portion of the sleep bout (i.e., six and three h, respectively) without providing context for this decision in the introduction or method”

    From The effect of caffeine on subsequent sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. LEWIS, S.A. (1970). Comparative effects of some amphetamine derivatives on human sleep. In International Symposium on Amphetamine and Related Compounds, eds. Costa, E. & Garratini, S., pp. 873-888. New York: Raven Press.
  2. OSWALD, I. (1970). Effects on sleep of amphetamine and its derivatives. In International Symposium on Amphetamine and Related Compounds, eds. Costa, E. & Garratini, S., pp. 865-871. New York: Raven Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nicholson, A., & Stone, B.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1980-02
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
195-203
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb05833.x
PMC
PMC1429858
OpenAlex
W2041996063
Cited by
107
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 11864 d)
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
McDonald's Corporation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
pemoline, methylphenidate, caffeine, sleep, REM sleep, slow-wave sleep, sleep latency, total sleep time, stimulants, sleep quality, subjective well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Amphetamines, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Caffeine, Electroencephalography, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Norbornanes, Pemoline, Pyrrolidines, Sleep, Sleep, REM

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