Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30020966›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Hypotheses and evidence related to intense sweeteners and effects on appetite and body weight changes: A scoping review of reviews.

Annhild Mosdøl, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Camilla Svendsen, Hubert Dirven, Inger Therese Laugsand Lillegaard, Gro Haarklou Mathisen, Trine Husøy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisScoping Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Low- or No-Energy Sweeteners and Body Weight Management: Dissecting a "Minor" Effect.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Practical Strategies to Help Reduce Added Sugars Consumption to Support Glycemic and Weight Management Goals.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

7 authors.

Annhild MosdølDivision for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8819-2550
Gunn Elisabeth VistDivision for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Camilla SvendsenDivision for infection control and environmental health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Hubert DirvenDivision for infection control and environmental health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Inger Therese Laugsand LillegaardThe Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Oslo, Norway.
Gro Haarklou MathisenThe Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Oslo, Norway.
Trine HusøyDivision for infection control and environmental health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Observed associations between consumption of diet foods and obesity have sparked controversy over whether intense sweeteners may promote weight gain, despite their negligible energy contribution. We conducted a scoping review of reviews, to obtain an overview of hypotheses, research approaches and features of the evidence on intense sweeteners' potential relationships to appetite and weight changes. We searched for reviews of the scientific literature published from 2006 to May 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed title and abstracts, and full text publications. Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews guided the process. We extracted and charted data on characteristics of the reviews and the evidence presented. The 40 included reviews present hypotheses both on how intense sweeteners can reduce or maintain body weight and on how these can promote weight gain. We classified only five publications as systematic reviews; another nine presented some systematic approaches, while 26 reviews did not describe criteria for selecting or assessing the primary studies. Evidence was often presented for intense sweeteners as a group or unspecified, and against several comparators (e.g. sugar, water, placebo, intake levels) with limited discussion on the interpretation of different combinations. Apart from the observational studies, the presented primary evidence in humans is dominated by small studies with short follow-up-considered insufficient to assess weight change. Systematic reviews of animal studies are lacking in this topic area. The systematic evidence only partly explore forwarded hypotheses found in the literature. Primary studies in humans seem to be available for systematic exploration of some hypotheses, but long-term experimental studies in humans appear sparse. With few exceptions, the reviews on intense sweeteners and weight change underuse systematic methodology, and thus, the available evidence. Further studies and systematic reviews should be explicit about the hypothesis explored and elucidate possible underlying mechanisms.

Indexed as

AppetiteBody WeightHumansPublic Health SurveillanceReview Literature as TopicSweetening AgentsSweetening Agents

Identifiers

PMID30020966
PMCPMC6051566

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.