Abstract
Background/Objectives: Caffeine is a well-established ergogenic aid for endurance performance. However, the optimal intake strategy, specifically the administration method and dosage, remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of different caffeine administration methods and dosages on time-trial performance. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted up to July 2025. Eligible studies were independently screened and quality-assessed by two reviewers. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted to examine the effects of caffeine administration methods (e.g., capsules/tablets, gum, mouth rinse) and dosages (low: ≤3 mg/kg; moderate: 4-6 mg/kg) on time-trial performance. Results: Forty-eight studies with 612 participants were included. Low-dose capsules most effectively reduced completion time (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.62, -0.06), followed by moderate-dose capsules (SMD = -0.31; 95% CI: -0.45, -0.17) and moderate-dose gum (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.02). Low-dose capsules also had the highest probability of improving mean power output (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.67), with moderate-dose capsules ranking second (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.48). Conclusions: This systematic review and network meta-analysis identified low-dose caffeine capsules (≈3 mg/kg) as the most effective strategy for improving time-trial performance, with moderate-dose capsules and gum serving as viable alternatives. While these findings provide robust, actionable evidence for practitioners, meaningful inter-individual variability persists. Accordingly, future studies should integrate deeper mechanistic profiling (e.g., genetics and body composition) to advance personalized, evidence-based caffeine supplementation for athletes.