ArticleNutrients2022
Is There an Academic Bias against Low-Energy Sweeteners?
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dietary Guidance, Sensory, Health and Safety Considerations When Choosing Low and No-Calorie Sweeteners.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Educational Intervention Boosts Dietitians' Knowledge of the Safety and Approval of Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners.Nutrients · 2024Article
- 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
- Article
- An Updated Framework for Industry Funding of Food and Nutrition Research: Managing Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity.The Journal of nutrition · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This perspective considers evidence of a common academic bias against low-energy sweeteners (LES). The core proposition is that this bias is manifested in research and reporting focused on generating and placing a negative spin on LES, largely through selective citation, interpretation and reporting. The evidence centres on three inter-related points, which together may generate a misleading impression of the balance of evidence: (1) basic and mechanistic research on LES perpetuates "explanations" for unsubstantiated adverse effects of LES; (2) the literature on LES-particularly narrative reviews and commentaries-continually reprises hypotheses of adverse effects without acknowledging where these hypotheses have been rigorously tested and rejected; and (3) negative interpretations of the effects of LES largely rely upon selectively emphasising lower-quality research whilst ignoring or dismissing higher-quality evidence. The expert community should consider these issues in assuring scientific integrity and balance in the academic discourse on LES, and how this is translated into messages for public health and consumers.
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.