↓ Skip to main content

Menstrual cycle effects on caffeine elimination in the human female

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, November 1992
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Menstrual cycle effects on caffeine elimination in the human female
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, November 1992
DOI 10.1007/bf02285099
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. D. Lane, J. F. Steege, S. L. Rupp, C. M. Kuhn

Abstract

Increases in the levels of sex steroids due to pregnancy or oral contraceptive steroid use are known to decrease significantly the rate at which caffeine is eliminated from the body. An investigation has now been made into whether the changes in sex steroid levels that occur during normal menstrual cycling also affect the rate of caffeine elimination, especially whether hormonal shifts in the luteal phase are associated with slower elimination of caffeine. Repeated 24-hour caffeine elimination studies were conducted during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in 10 healthy women. Comparisons of the follicular and luteal phases revealed that systemic clearance of caffeine was slower in the luteal phase, although the t1/2 did not differ. The slowing effect was related to the proximity to onset of menstruation and to levels of progesterone. The evidence suggests that caffeine elimination may be slowed in the late luteal phase, prior to the onset of menstruation. Such a reduction would lead to increased accumulation of caffeine with repeated self-administration during the day, but the effect may be too small to be of clinical significance in the majority of women.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Uruguay 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 23%
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Other 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 20 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,921,150
of 23,877,717 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#116
of 2,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#426
of 19,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,877,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 19,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.