ReviewBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2021
Low-energy sweeteners and body weight: a citation network analysis.
Review in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of Non- and Low-Caloric Sweeteners on Substrate Oxidation, Energy Expenditure, and Catecholamines in Humans-A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Relation of Change or Substitution of Low- and No-Calorie Sweetened Beverages With Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.Diabetes care · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Effect of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on weight management and gut microbiota composition in individuals with overweight or obesity: the SWEET study.Nature metabolism · 2025Trial
- Non-nutritive sweetened beverages versus water after a 52-week weight management programme: a randomised controlled trial.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Trial
- Low- or No-Energy Sweeteners and Body Weight Management: Dissecting a "Minor" Effect.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Review
- The Effect of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners' Consumption on Body Weight: A Randomized-Controlled Trial.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- An Overview of Reviews on the Association of Low Calorie Sweetener Consumption With Body Weight and Adiposity.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Review
- Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition: Categorical Thinking and the Stigma of Commercial Collaboration.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Identifying Plasma and Urinary Biomarkers of Fermented Food Intake and Their Associations with Cardiometabolic Health in a Dutch Observational Cohort.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2023Observational
- Article
- Article
- Is There an Academic Bias against Low-Energy Sweeteners?Nutrients · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveReviews on the relationship of low-energy sweeteners (LES) with body weight (BW) have reached widely differing conclusions. To assess possible citation bias, citation analysis was used to quantify the relevant characteristics of cited articles, and explore citation patterns in relation to review conclusions.
designA systematic search identified reviews published from January 2010 to March 2020. Different characteristics (for example, type of review or research, journal impact factor, conclusions) were extracted from the reviews and cited articles. Logistic regression was used to estimate likelihood of articles with particular characteristics being cited in reviews. A qualitative network analysis linked reviews sub-grouped by conclusions with the types of articles they cited.
main outcome measures(OR; 95% CI) for likelihood that articles with particular characteristics were cited as evidence in reviews.
resultsFrom 33 reviews identified, 183 different articles were cited (including other reviews). Narrative reviews were 62% less likely to be cited than systematic reviews with meta-analysis (OR 0.38; 0.16 to 0.86; p=0.03). Likelihood of being cited was higher for evidence on children than adults (OR 2.27; 1.59 to 3.25; p<0.0001), and with increased journal impact factor (OR 1.15; 1.00 to 1.31; p=0.04). No other factors were statistically significant in the main analysis, and few factors were significant in subgroup analyses. Network analysis showed that reviews concluding a beneficial relationship of LES with BW cited mainly randomised controlled trials, whereas reviews concluding an adverse relationship cited mainly observational studies.
conclusionsOverall reference to the available evidence across reviews appears largely arbitrary, making citation bias likely. Differences in the conclusions of individual reviews map onto different types of evidence cited. Overall, inconsistent and selective use of the available evidence may account for the diversity of conclusions in reviews on LES and BW. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prior to data analysis, the protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ghws).
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.