Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32849937›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2020

A Study of Artificial Sweeteners and Thyroid Cancer Risk.

Navdeep Singh, Sandeep Singh Lubana, Saurabh Arora, Issac Sachmechi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Food sweeteners: Angels or clowns for human health?Current research in food science · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Navdeep SinghDepartment of Internal Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA.
Sandeep Singh LubanaDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical School, 450 Clarkson Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA.
Saurabh AroraDepartment of Endocrinology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab 141001, India.
Issac SachmechiDepartment of Endocrinology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai/Queens Hospital Center, 82-68 164th St., Jamaica, NY 11432, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades, data from certain observational studies have stirred controversy over artificial sweeteners by linking them with certain malignancies. As the incidences of artificial sweetener consumption and thyroid cancer are both increasing, our study aimed to determine any possible association between them.

methodsThis retrospective observational study enrolled 50 patients (group 1) with proven diagnosis of well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) and 50 control subjects (group 2) diagnosed as having benign thyroid nodule by fine-needle aspiration. The survey questionnaire included the total amount and duration of intake of artificial sweeteners.

resultsIncreased consumption of artificial sweeteners was noted in group 1 as compared to group 2, which was statistically significant (76% vs. 24%, P < 0.01). This study suggested that the use of an average of four packets (4 g) per day of artificial sweetener for an average duration of 5 years is associated with WDTC.

conclusionsOur study emphasizes the significance of artificial sweetener consumption as a potential risk factor for WDTC and increase in public awareness regarding this association if other studies in future report similar findings.

Indexed as

Artificial sweetenersBenign thyroid noduleWell-differentiated thyroid cancer

Identifiers

PMID32849937
PMCPMC7430875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.