Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32805008›Full record

ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

Objective Biomarkers for Total Added Sugar Intake - Are We on a Wild Goose Chase?

Jimmy Chun Yu Louie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

1 author.

Jimmy Chun Yu LouieSchool of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misreporting of added sugar intake has been the major criticism of studies linking high added sugar consumption to adverse health outcomes. Despite the advancement in dietary assessment methodologies, the bias introduced by self-reporting can never be completely eliminated. The search for an objective biomarker for total added sugar intake has therefore been a topic of interest. In this article, the reasons this search may be a wild goose chase will be outlined and discussed. The limitations and inability of the 2 candidate biomarkers, namely urinary sucrose and fructose and δ¹³C isotope, which are based on the 2 only possible ways (i.e., difference in metabolism and plant sources) to identify added sugar based on current knowledge in human physiology and food and nutritional sciences, are discussed in detail. Validation studies have shown that these 2 candidate biomarkers are unlikely to be suitable for use as a predictive or calibration biomarker for total added sugar intake. Unless advancement in our understanding in human physiology and food and nutritional sciences leads to new potential ways to distinguish between naturally occurring and added sugars, it is extremely unlikely that any accurate objective added sugar biomarker could be found. It may be time to stop the futile effort in searching for such a biomarker, and resources may be better spent on further improving and innovating dietary assessment methods to minimize the bias introduced by self-reporting.

Indexed as

Dietary CarbohydratesBiomarkersDietary SucroseEnergy IntakeGlucoseHumansBiomarkersDietary CarbohydratesDietary SucroseGlucoseadded sugarsbiomarkermetaboliteurinary sucrosevalidityδ¹³C isotope

Identifiers

PMID32805008
PMCPMC7666891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.