Systematic review2017Industry funded

Funded in part by 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 citations

Review labels

Industry funded

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Systematic review (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Industry funded
Industry group
American Beverage Association
Nonprofit
Fondazione Istituto Oncologico del Mediterraneo
Government
Sächsische Aufbaubank
Industry group
International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation
Government
Health Canada
Company
SAB
Nonprofit
IOM
Industry group
North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute
Industry group
National Coffee Association
Industry group
North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Caffeine Working Group

Based on 10 listed funder(s).

Publication

Published
2017-04-21 · Food Chem Toxicol · vol. 109 · issue Pt 1 · pp. 585–648
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Cited
440 citations · more than 98% of similar papers · 7.0× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
322 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
Research areas
Coffee research and impacts · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet · Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
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 authors

From US, CA

  • Daniele Staskal Wikoff · correspondingBioStrategies (United States)
  • Brian T. Welsh
  • Rayetta G. HendersonTriangle; BioStrategies (United States)
  • Gregory P. BrorbyBioStrategies (United States)
  • Janice K. Britt
  • Esther F. Myers

Abstract

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.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.