Lanzamiento Enero 2027

Revisión sistemática2017Financiado por la industria

Financiado en parte por American Beverage Association, International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation, SAB, North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute, National Coffee Association, North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Caffeine Working Group

Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children

Wikoff D, Welsh BT, Henderson R, Brorby GP, Britt J, Myers E, Goldberger J, Lieberman HR, O'Brien C, Peck J, Tenenbein M, Weaver C, Harvey S, Urban J, Doepker C

Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 270 citas

Etiquetas de revisión

Financiado por la industria

Datos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.

Cómo se estudió

Diseño
Revisión sistemática (indexado por PubMed)
Estudiado en
Personas
Resultado principal
Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento

Quién lo pagó

Financiación
Financiado por la industria
Grupo de la industria
American Beverage Association
Organización sin fines de lucro
Fondazione Istituto Oncologico del Mediterraneo
Gobierno
Sächsische Aufbaubank
Grupo de la industria
International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation
Gobierno
Health Canada
Empresa
SAB
Organización sin fines de lucro
IOM
Grupo de la industria
North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute
Grupo de la industria
National Coffee Association
Grupo de la industria
North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Caffeine Working Group

Según 10 financiadores declarados.

Publicación

Publicado
2017-04-21 · Food Chem Toxicol · vol. 109 · número Pt 1 · págs. 585–648
Editorial
Elsevier BV
Citado
440 citas · más que el 98% de estudios similares · 7.0× el promedio de su campo
Impacto
Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
Referencias
322 trabajos
Acceso
Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY-NC-ND
Áreas de investigación
Coffee research and impacts · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet · Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Palabras clave
Medicine, Caffeine, Population, Adverse effect, Peer review, Environmental health, Demography, Gerontology, Psychiatry, Internal medicine
MeSH
humans, pregnancy complications, caffeine, pregnancy, adolescent, adult, child, female, male, young adult, adolescent health, child health

15 autores

  • Daniele Staskal Wikoff🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaBioStrategies (United States)
  • Brian T. Welsh
  • Rayetta G. Henderson🇺🇸Triangle; BioStrategies (United States)
  • Gregory P. Brorby🇺🇸BioStrategies (United States)
  • Janice K. Britt
  • Esther F. Myers
  • Jeffrey J. Goldberger🇺🇸University of Miami
  • Harris R. Lieberman🇺🇸U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
  • Charles P. O’Brien🇺🇸University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia University
  • Jennifer David Peck🇺🇸University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
  • Milton Tenenbein🇨🇦Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba; University of Manitoba
  • Connie M. Weaver🇺🇸Purdue University West Lafayette
  • Seneca Harvey
  • Jonathan D. Urban
  • Candace Lippoli Doepker🇺🇸BioStrategies (United States)

Resumen

El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.

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.

Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).

Confianza de la comunidad

Cargando…

¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?

0 · nada10 · totalmente

Comentarios

¿Algo está mal aquí?

Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.

Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.