Behavioral and physiologic adverse effects in adolescent and young adult emergency department patients reporting use of energy drinks and caffeine
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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