ArticleAppetite2021
The relation between stimulated salivary flow and the temporal consumption experience of a liquid oral nutritional supplement.
Article in Appetite, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coaggregation of oral pathogens by postbiotic lactobacilli.Journal of oral microbiology · 2025Article
- Oral somatosensory alterations and salivary dysfunction in head and neck cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Research on the Relationship of Consumption Emotion, Experiential Marketing, and Revisit Intention in Cultural Tourism Cities: A Case Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Factors Affecting Adherence, Intake, and Perceived Palatability of Oral Nutritional Supplements: A Literature Review.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Use of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in undernourished patients has proven clinical benefits, but this can be hampered by low adherence due to poor experience of palatability. Many patients, particularly older patients, experience hyposalivation which can cause taste changes and reduce the enjoyment of foods. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in the temporal consumption experience (comprising sensory perception, in-mouth aroma release and subjective appetite) of a clinically relevant portion of ONS, for groups differing in saliva flow rates (SFR). The SFR (mL/min) of thirty healthy individuals was measured on three occasions. This data was used to categorise individuals into three groups using quartile analysis: low flow (LF) (0.3-0.6 mL/min, n = 5), medium flow (MF) (0.7-1.2 mL/min, n = 16) and high flow (HF) (1.3-1.8 mL/min, n = 9). Over the consumption of eight 15 mL sips of ONS, individuals rated their sensory perception and subjective appetite perception using line scales. Additionally, in-mouth aroma release was measured for each sip, using atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation (APCI). Compared with the MF and HF group, the LF group reported a significantly greater increase of mouth-drying over increased sips (p = 0.02). The LF group also experienced significantly higher aftertaste perception (p < 0.001), and more intense in-mouth aroma release (p = 0.015), compared with the HF group. These findings occurred concurrently with relatively lower hunger sensations in the LF and MF group. Many patients who are prescribed ONS likely experience reduced salivary flow rates. The unique sensory experiences of these individuals should be considered in order to optimise palatability and nutritional intake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.