Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30679671›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2019

Comparing patterns of volatile organic compounds exhaled in breath after consumption of two infant formulae with a different lipid structure: a randomized trial.

A Smolinska, A Baranska, J W Dallinga, R P Mensink, S Baumgartner, B J M van de Heijning, F J van Schooten

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A SmolinskaNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Department Pharmacology & Toxicology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. A.Smolinska@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
A BaranskaNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Department Pharmacology & Toxicology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J W DallingaNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Department Pharmacology & Toxicology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
R P MensinkNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
S BaumgartnerNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
B J M van de HeijningNutricia Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
F J van SchootenNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Department Pharmacology & Toxicology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLNutricia Research (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infant formulae have been used since decades as an alternative to or a complement to human milk. Human milk, the "gold standard" of infant nutrition, has been studied for its properties in order to create infant formulae that bring similar benefits to the infant. One of the characteristics of milk is the size of the lipid droplets which is known to affect the digestion, gastric emptying and triglyceride metabolism. In the current study a concept infant milk formula with large, phospholipid coating of lipid droplets (mode diameter 3-5 μm; NUTURIS, further described as "active"), was compared to a commercially available formula milk characterised by smaller lipid droplets, further described as "control" (both products derived from Nutricia). We investigated whether we could find an effect of lipid droplet size on volatile compounds in exhaled air upon ingestion of either product. For that purpose, exhaled breath was collected from a group of 29 healthy, non-smoking adult males before ingestion of a study product (baseline measurements, T0) and at the following time points after the test meal: 30, 60, 120, 180 and 240 min. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath were detected by gas chromatography-time-of-flight-mass spectrometry. Any differences in the time course of VOCs patterns upon intake of active and control products were investigated by regularised multivariate analysis of variance (rMANOVA). The rMANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the exhaled breath composition 240 min after ingestion of the active formula compared to control product (p-value < 0.0001), but did not show significant changes between active and control product at any earlier time points. A set of eight VOCs in exhaled breath had the highest contribution to the difference found at 240 minutes between the two formulas. A set of ten VOCs was different between baseline and the two formulae at T240 with p-value < 0.0001. To our knowledge this is the first study that shows the ability of VOCs in exhaled breath to monitor metabolic effects after ingestion of infant formulae with different lipid structure. The statistically significant differences in compound abundance found between active and control formula milk may be related to: (i) specific differences in the digestion, (ii) absorption of lipids and proteins and (iii) assimilation of the products in the gut.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBreath TestsCross-Over StudiesDigestionDouble-Blind MethodEatingExhalationGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryGastrointestinal AbsorptionHealthy VolunteersHumansInfant FormulaLipid DropletsMalePhospholipidsPhospholipidsVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID30679671
PMCPMC6346115
OpenAlexW2912124531

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.