Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27956737›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of obesity (2005)2017

Effects of aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages on postprandial glucose, insulin and energy intake.

S L Tey, N B Salleh, J Henry, C G Forde

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of obesity (2005), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05298111 (Acute Effect of Melon Manis Terengganu Peel Powder on Glycemic Response, Satiety, and Food Intake in Adults at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT05298111 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Acute Effect of Melon Manis Terengganu Peel Powder on Glycemic Response, Satiety, and Food Intake in Adults at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversiti Sultan Zainal AbidinRan2021 to 2021Enrolled36ConditionsAt Risk of Type 2 Diabetes MellitusArmsFormulation 3, Control
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S L TeyClinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore.
N B SallehClinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore.
J HenryClinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore.
C G FordeClinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore.
Agency for Science, Technology and Research · SGClinical Nutrition Research Centre · SGNational University of Singapore · SGSingapore Institute for Clinical Sciences · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstituting sweeteners with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) may aid in glycaemic control and body weight management. Limited studies have investigated energy compensation, glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to artificial and natural NNS.

objectivesThis study compared the effects of consuming NNS (artificial versus natural) and sucrose (65 g) on energy intake, blood glucose and insulin responses.

methodsThirty healthy male subjects took part in this randomised, crossover study with four treatments: aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages. On each test day, participants were asked to consume a standardised breakfast in the morning, and they were provided with test beverage as a preload in mid-morning and ad libitum lunch was provided an hour after test beverage consumption. Blood glucose and insulin concentrations were measured every 15 min within the first hour of preload consumption and every 30 min for the subsequent 2 h. Participants left the study site 3 h after preload consumption and completed a food diary for the rest of the day.

resultsAd libitum lunch intake was significantly higher for the NNS treatments compared with sucrose (P=0.010). The energy 'saved' from replacing sucrose with NNS was fully compensated for at subsequent meals; hence, no difference in total daily energy intake was found between the treatments (P=0.831). The sucrose-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in blood glucose and insulin responses within the first hour, whereas these responses were higher for all three NNS beverages following the test lunch. Thus, there were no differences in total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose (P=0.960) and insulin (P=0.216) over 3 h between the four test beverages.

conclusionsThe consumption of calorie-free beverages sweetened with artificial and natural NNS have minimal influences on total daily energy intake, postprandial glucose and insulin compared with a sucrose-sweetened beverage.

Indexed as

BeveragesSteviaAdultAppetiteAspartameBlood GlucoseCross-Over StudiesDietary SucroseEnergy IntakeFructoseHumansInsulinMaleMiddle AgedNon-Nutritive SweetenersNutritive SweetenersAspartameBlood GlucoseDietary SucroseFructoseInsulinNon-Nutritive SweetenersNutritive SweetenersSweetening Agents

Identifiers

PMID27956737
OpenAlexW2567496955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.