Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34064724›Full record

ReviewNutrients2021

Review on the Regional Effects of Gastrointestinal Luminal Stimulation on Appetite and Energy Intake: (Pre)clinical Observations.

Jennifer Wilbrink, Gwen Masclee, Tim Klaassen, Mark van Avesaat, Daniel Keszthelyi, Adrian Masclee

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The role of ultra-processed food in obesity.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer WilbrinkDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gwen MascleeDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tim KlaassenDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mark van AvesaatDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Daniel KeszthelyiDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9856-9980
Adrian MascleeDivision of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macronutrients in the gastrointestinal (GI) lumen are able to activate "intestinal brakes", feedback mechanisms on proximal GI motility and secretion including appetite and energy intake. In this review, we provide a detailed overview of the current evidence with respect to four questions: (1) are regional differences (duodenum, jejunum, ileum) present in the intestinal luminal nutrient modulation of appetite and energy intake? (2) is this "intestinal brake" effect macronutrient specific? (3) is this "intestinal brake" effect maintained during repetitive activation? (4) can the "intestinal brake" effect be activated via non-caloric tastants? Recent evidence indicates that: (1) regional differences exist in the intestinal modulation of appetite and energy intake with a proximal to distal gradient for inhibition of energy intake: ileum and jejunum > duodenum at low but not at high caloric infusion rates. (2) the "intestinal brake" effect on appetite and energy appears not to be macronutrient specific. At equi-caloric amounts, the inhibition on energy intake and appetite is in the same range for fat, protein and carbohydrate. (3) data on repetitive ileal brake activation are scarce because of the need for prolonged intestinal intubation. During repetitive activation of the ileal brake for up to 4 days, no adaptation was observed but overall the inhibitory effect on energy intake was small. (4) the concept of influencing energy intake by intra-intestinal delivery of non-caloric tastants is intriguing. Among tastants, the bitter compounds appear to be more effective in influencing energy intake. Energy intake decreases modestly after post-oral delivery of bitter tastants or a combination of tastants (bitter, sweet and umami). Intestinal brake activation provides an interesting concept for preventive and therapeutic approaches in weight management strategies.

Indexed as

AppetiteDatabases, FactualDietary CarbohydratesDietary FatsDietary ProteinsDuodenumEnergy IntakeGastrointestinal MotilityGastrointestinal TractHumansIleumJejunumDietary CarbohydratesDietary FatsDietary Proteinsappetitecarbohydrateduodenal jejunal and ileal brakeenergy intakefatintestinal brakeproteinsatiationsatietytastants

Identifiers

PMID34064724
PMCPMC8151500
OpenAlexW3162904122

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.