Cited by 51Coffee research and impactsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSleep and related disorders

Behavioral and physiologic adverse effects in adolescent and young adult emergency department patients reporting use of energy drinks and caffeine

Jackson, Deidrya A. E., Cotter, Bradford V., Merchant, Roland C., Babu, Kavita M., Baird, Janette R., Nirenberg, Ted, Linakis, James G.·2013·Clinical Toxicology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This pilot study assessed the prevalence of physiologic and behavioral adverse effects among adolescent (13-17 years) and adult (18-25 years) emergency department patients who reported energy drink and/or caffeinated-only beverage use within the 30 days prior to emergency department presentation. It was hypothesized that energy drink users would report more adverse effects than those who used only traditional caffeinated beverages such as coffee, tea, or soft drinks. METHODS: This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted in two urban emergency departments, one adult and one pediatric. Eligible patients were enrolled during a 6-week period between June and August 2010. Participants completed a tablet computer-based, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire about their past 30-day energy drink and/or caffeinated-only beverage use, substance use, and experience of 10 physiologic and 10 behavioral symptoms. Multivariable logistic regression and negative binomial regression models, adjusted for age, gender, and substance use, were created to compare the occurrence of each adverse effect between energy drink and caffeinated-only beverage users. Odds ratios (ORs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated. RESULTS: Of those enrolled, 53.3% reported consuming energy drinks, 39.1% caffeinated-only beverages, and 7.6% no energy drinks or caffeinated-only beverages within the past 30 days. In multivariable logistic regression models, energy drink users were more likely than caffeinated-only beverage users to report having "gotten into trouble at home, school, or work" in the past 30 days (OR: 3.12 [1.24-7.88]). In the negative binomial regression multivariable models, more behavioral effects were reported among drug users (IRR: 1.50 [1.18-1.93]), and more physiologic effects were reported among tobacco users (IRR: 1.42 [1.13-1.80]) and females (IRR: 1.48 [1.21-1.80]), but not among energy drink users. CONCLUSIONS: Energy drink users and substance users are more likely to report specific physiologic and behavioral adverse effects. Emergency department clinicians should consider asking patients about energy drink and traditional caffeine usage and substance use when assessing patient symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/15563650.2013.820311

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A study of 13- to 17-year olds admitted to urban emergency rooms in the U.S. found that more than half reported consuming energy drinks in the past month, and those who had were also more likely to report that they had "gotten into trouble at home, school, or work" than those who consumed other types of caffeinated beverages [OR: 3.12 (1.24-7.88)].

    “A study of 13- to 17-year olds admitted to urban emergency rooms in the U.S. found that more than half reported consuming energy drinks in the past month, and those who had were also more likely to report that they had “gotten into trouble at home, school, or work” than those who consumed other types of caffeinated beverages [OR: 3.12 (1.24–7.88)] (117).”

    From The Safety of Ingested Caffeine: A Comprehensive Review (2017) · cites this paper as [117]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 19 · Cited by 51

Authors
Jackson, D. A. E., Cotter, B. V., Merchant, R. C., Babu, K. M., Baird, J. R., Nirenberg, T., & Linakis, J. G.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Merchant, Roland C.
Venue
Clinical Toxicology
Published
2013-07-19
Volume
51
Issue
7
Pages
557-565
ISSN
  • 0009-9309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3650
  • 1556-9519
OpenAlex
W1969599964
Cited by
51
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
energy drinks, caffeine, caffeinated beverages, adverse effects, behavioral effects, physiological effects, adolescents, young adults, emergency department patients, substance use, tobacco use, drug use, emergency department evaluation
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Caffeine, Cross-Sectional Studies, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rhode Island, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Smoking, Time Factors, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Risk Assessment, Substance-Related Disorders, Neurotoxicity Syndromes, Young Adult, Energy Drinks

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