Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35388874›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2022

The effects of SCFAs on glycemic control in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anna Cherta-Murillo, Jennifer E Pugh, Sumayya Alaraj-Alshehhi, Dana Hajjar, Edward S Chambers, Gary S Frost

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Short-chain fatty acids.Nature metabolism · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna Cherta-MurilloSection for Nutrition Research, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Jennifer E PughSection for Nutrition Research, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5310-2882
Sumayya Alaraj-AlshehhiSection for Nutrition Research, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Dana HajjarSection for Nutrition Research, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Edward S ChambersSection for Nutrition Research, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Gary S FrostSection for Nutrition Research, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Hammersmith Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNoncommunicable disease development is related to impairments in glycemic and insulinemic responses, which can be modulated by fiber intake. Fiber's beneficial effects upon metabolic health can be partially attributed to the production of SCFAs via microbial fermentation of fiber in the gastrointestinal tract.

objectivesWe aimed to determine the effects of SCFAs, acetate, propionate, and butyrate on glycemic control in humans.

methodsThe CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 7 December 2021. Papers were included if they reported a randomized controlled trial measuring glucose and/or insulin compared to a placebo in adults. Studies were categorized by the type of SCFA and intervention duration. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for glucose and insulin for those subject categories with ≥3 studies, or a narrative review was performed.

resultsWe identified 43 eligible papers, with 46 studies within those records (n = 913), and 44 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Vinegar intake decreased the acute glucose response [standard mean difference (SMD), -0.53; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.14; n = 67] in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes and in healthy volunteers (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.00; n = 186). The meta-analyses for acute acetate, as well as acute and chronic propionate studies, showed no significant effect.

conclusionsVinegar decreased the glucose response acutely in healthy and metabolically unhealthy individuals. Acetate, propionate, butyrate, and mixed SCFAs had no effect on blood glucose and insulin in humans. Significant heterogeneity, risks of bias, and publication biases were identified in several study categories, including the acute vinegar glucose response. As evidence was very uncertain, caution is urged when interpreting these results. Further high-quality research is required to determine the effects of SCFAs on glycemic control.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycemic ControlAcetic AcidAdultBlood GlucoseButyratesGlucoseHumansInsulinPropionatesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcetic AcidBlood GlucoseButyratesGlucoseInsulinPropionatesacetatebutyrateglycemic controlinsulinmeta-analysispropionateshort-chain fatty acidssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35388874
PMCPMC9348993
OpenAlexW4226042864

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.