ReviewFrontiers in physiology2026
Distinguishing caffeine expectancy from pharmacological effects: a comparative review of experimental designs with future directions.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Caffeine (CAF) is among the most widely consumed bioactive substances and is recognized for its ergogenic benefits. Yet, separating its expectancy-driven effects from pharmacological effects remains challenging. This review compares the randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover, deceptive placebo-balanced, and double-deceptive placebo-balanced crossover designs commonly used in CAF studies. While the double-blind crossover design effectively controls individual variability, it cannot directly measure expectancy. In contrast, placebo-balanced crossover designs incorporating deception provide the most comprehensive framework when the aim is to separate pharmacological and expectancy-related effects, allowing a more precise interpretation of caffeine's mechanisms. Differences in studies designs may partially explain inconsistencies in the literature, as expectancy-related components are not equally controlled across experimental approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.