Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33754456›Full record

SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2021

Sensory and physical characteristics of foods that impact food intake without affecting acceptability: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Katherine M Appleton, Annie Newbury, Eva Almiron-Roig, Martin R Yeomans, Jeffrey M Brunstrom, Kees de Graaf, Lucie Geurts, Heidi Kildegaard, Sophie Vinoy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Sensory and physical characteristics of foods that impact food intake without affecting acceptability: Systematic review and meta-analyses.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Discordance between gut-derived appetite hormones and energy intake in humans.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors.

Katherine M AppletonDepartment of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7045-3564
Annie NewburyDepartment of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Eva Almiron-RoigCenter for Nutrition Research, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1630-8849
Martin R YeomansSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1436-1483
Jeffrey M BrunstromSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4657-7799
Kees de GraafDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5748-6916
Lucie GeurtsScientific Department, ILSI Europe, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2975-9590
Heidi KildegaardProduct & Innovation, Arla Foods, Aarhus, Denmark.
Sophie VinoyNutrition Department, Mondelez International R&D, Saclay, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1038-6985

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review with meta-analyses aimed to identify the sensory and physical characteristics of foods/beverages which increase satiation and/or decrease/delay subsequent consumption without affecting acceptability. Systematic searches were first undertaken to identify review articles investigating the effects of any sensory and physical food characteristic on food intake. These articles provided some evidence that various textural parameters (aeration, hardness, homogeneity, viscosity, physical form, added water) can impact food intake. Individual studies investigating these effects while also investigating acceptability were then assessed. Thirty-seven individual studies investigated a textural manipulation and provided results on food intake and acceptability, 13 studies (27 comparisons, 898 participants) investigated effects on satiation, and 29 studies (54 comparisons, 916 participants) investigated effects on subsequent intake. Meta-analyses of within-subjects comparisons (random-effects models) demonstrated greater satiation (less weight consumed) from food products that were harder, chunkier, more viscous, voluminous, and/or solid, while demonstrating no effects on acceptability. Textural parameters had limited effects on subsequent consumption. Between-subjects studies and sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. These findings provide some evidence that textural parameters can increase satiation without affecting acceptability. The development of harder, chunkier, more viscous, voluminous, and/or solid food/beverage products may be of value in reducing overconsumption.

Indexed as

EatingEnergy IntakeFoodFood PreferencesHumansSatiationfood intakepalatabilitysatiationsatietytexture

Identifiers

PMID33754456
PMCPMC8365638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.