Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2017
Effects of non-nutritive (artificial vs natural) sweeteners on 24-h glucose profiles.
Trial report in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Monk Fruit Extract and Sustainable Health: A PRISMA-Guided Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Non-Invasive Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients Without Diabetes: Use in Cardiovascular Prevention-A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Consumption of a Beverage Containing Aspartame and Acesulfame K for Two Weeks Does Not Adversely Influence Glucose Metabolism in Adult Males and Females: A Randomized Crossover Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Effects of Consuming Preloads with Different Energy Density and Taste Quality on Energy Intake and Postprandial Blood Glucose.Nutrients · 2018Trial
- Review
- Mogrosides as Dual-Function Sweeteners: A Comprehensive Review of Extraction, Metabolism, Antidiabetic Mechanisms, and Food Applications.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Stevia-derived sweeteners in reduced-sugar foods: formulation strategies, sensory optimization, nutritional evidence, and safety perspectives.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Potential Effects of Low-Calorie Sweeteners on Human Health.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Glycemic response to SSBs and ASBs: the role of mixed meals and individual variability.Nutrition journal · 2025Article
- Defining a Continuous Glucose Baseline to assess the impact of nutritional interventions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Consumption of Non-nutritive Sweeteners and Risk for Type 2 Diabetes: What Do We Know, and Not?Current diabetes reports · 2021Review
- Chronic Intake of Energy Drinks and Their Sugar Free Substitution Similarly Promotes Metabolic Syndrome.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Effects of Non-nutritive Sweeteners on Sweet Taste Processing and Neuroendocrine Regulation of Eating Behavior.Current nutrition reports · 2020Review
- Trends in use, pharmacology, and clinical applications of emerging herbal nutraceuticals.British journal of pharmacology · 2020Review
- Article
- Natural Alternative Sweeteners and Diabetes Management.Current diabetes reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Replacing nutritive sweetener with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) has the potential to improve glycaemic control. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of consuming artificial NNS (that is, aspartame), natural NNS (that is, monk fruit and stevia), and sucrose-sweetened beverages on 24-h glucose profiles. Ten healthy males took part in this randomised, crossover study with the following four treatments: aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia-, and sucrose- (65 g) sweetened beverages. Participants were asked to consume the test beverage as a preload mid-morning. Medtronic iPro2 continuous glucose monitoring system was used to measure mean 24-h glucose, incremental area under the curve (iAUC) and total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose, and 24-h glycaemic variability. Overall no significant differences were found in mean 24-h glucose, iAUC and total AUC for glucose, and 24-h glycaemic variability between the four test beverages. Twenty-four-hour glucose profiles did not differ between beverages sweetened with non-nutritive (artificial vs natural) and nutritive sweeteners. The simple exchange of a single serving of sucrose-sweetened beverage with NNS over a day appears to have minimal effect on 24-h glucose profiles in healthy males.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28378852What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.