Cited by 135Coffee research and impactsPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsPregnancy and Medication Impact

Effect of reducing caffeine intake on birth weight and length of gestation: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Bech, Bodil Hammer, Obel, Carsten, Henriksen, Tine Brink, Olsen, Jørn·2007·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of reducing caffeine intake during pregnancy on birth weight and length of gestation. DESIGN: Randomised double blind controlled trial. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 1207 pregnant women drinking at least three cups of coffee a day, recruited before 20 weeks' gestation. INTERVENTIONS: Caffeinated instant coffee (568 women) or decaffeinated instant coffee (629 women). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Birth weight and length of gestation. RESULTS: Data on birth weight were obtained for 1150 liveborn singletons and on length of gestation for 1153 liveborn singletons. No significant differences were found for mean birth weight or mean length of gestation between women in the decaffeinated coffee group (whose mean caffeine intake was 182 mg lower than that of the other group) and women in the caffeinated coffee group. After adjustment for length of gestation, parity, prepregnancy body mass index, and smoking at entry to the study the mean birth weight of babies born to women in the decaffeinated group was 16 g (95% confidence interval -40 to 73) higher than those born to women in the caffeinated group. The adjusted difference (decaffeinated group-caffeinated group) of length of gestation was -1.31 days (-2.87 to 0.25). CONCLUSION: A moderate reduction in caffeine intake in the second half of pregnancy has no effect on birth weight or length of gestation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00131690 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

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 · 10.1136/bmj.39062.520648.be

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • In the Bech et al. (2007) RCT, after adjustment, the mean birth weight of babies born to women in the decaffeinated coffee group was 16 g (95% CI -40 to 73 g) higher than those born to women in the caffeinated group.

    “After adjustment for length of gestation, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index and smoking at baseline, the mean birth weight of babies born to women in the decaffeinated coffee group was 16 g (95 % CI = -40 to 73 g), which was higher than those born to women in the caffeinated group.”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Bech et al., 2007

  • In the Bech et al. (2007) RCT, the adjusted difference in length of gestation between the decaffeinated and caffeinated coffee groups was -1.31 days (95% CI -2.87 to 0.25).

    “The adjusted difference in length of gestation between the decaffeinated and caffeinated coffee groups was -1.31 days (-2.87 to 0.25).”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Bech et al., 2007

  • Decreasing caffeine intake from about 300 mg per day to about 100 mg per day in the third trimester of pregnancy does not decrease the risk, as observed in one human intervention study (Bech et al., 2007).

    “decreasing caffeine intake from about 300 mg per day to about 100 mg per day in the third trimester of pregnancy does not decrease the risk, as observed in one human intervention study (Bech et al., 2007).”

    From Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine (2015) · cites this paper as Bech et al., 2007

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bech, B. H., Obel, C., Henriksen, T. B., & Olsen, J.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Bech, Bodil Hammer
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-01-26
Volume
334
Issue
7590
Pages
409
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2156976674
Cited by
135
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • March of Dimes Foundation
  • National Research Foundation
  • Danmarks Grundforskningsfond
  • Augustinus Fonden
  • Egmont Fonden
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
caffeine consumption, pregnancy, birth weight, gestation length, decaffeinated coffee, instant coffee, coffee consumption
MeSH terms
Adult, Birth Weight, Caffeine, Coffee, Double-Blind Method, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Patient Compliance, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy Outcome, Maternal Exposure

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