Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25988140›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2015

The ecologic validity of fructose feeding trials: supraphysiological feeding of fructose in human trials requires careful consideration when drawing conclusions on cardiometabolic risk.

Vivian L Choo, John L Sievenpiper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vivian L ChooDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto , Toronto, ON , Canada ; Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael's Hospital , Toronto, ON , Canada.
John L SievenpiperDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto , Toronto, ON , Canada ; Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael's Hospital , Toronto, ON , Canada ; Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital , Toronto, ON , Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelect trials of fructose overfeeding have been used to implicate fructose as a driver of cardiometabolic risk.

objectiveWe examined temporal trends of fructose dose in human controlled feeding trials of fructose and cardiometabolic risk.

methodsWe combined studies from eight meta-analyses on fructose and cardiometabolic risk to assess the average fructose dose used in these trials. Two types of trials were identified: (1) substitution trials, in which energy from fructose was exchanged with equal energy from other carbohydrates and (2) addition trials, in which energy from fructose supplemented a diet compared to the diet alone.

resultsWe included 64 substitution trials and 16 addition trials. The weighted average fructose dose in substitution trials was 101.7 g/day (95% CI: 98.4-105.1 g/day), and the weighted average fructose dose in addition trials was 187.3 g/day (95% CI: 181.4-192.9 g/day).

conclusionAverage fructose dose in substitution and addition trials greatly exceed national levels of reported fructose intake (49 ± 1.0 g/day) (NHANES 1977-2004). Future trials using fructose doses at real world levels are needed.

Indexed as

cardiometabolic riskdosefructoseHFCSmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID25988140
PMCPMC4428471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.