ArticleGlobal epidemiology2023
The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews.
Article in Global epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perspectives on recent reviews of aspartame cancer epidemiology.Global epidemiology · 2023Article
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
Toews et al. [1] and the World Health Organization (WHO) [2] reviewed observational epidemiology studies of non-sugar sweeteners (NSSs) and various health effects. The former used the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the latter used both the ROBINS-I tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate study quality. Both reviews concluded that there were no associations between NSS or aspartame consumption and cancer (except possibly between saccharin and bladder cancer) but indicated that the certainty of the evidence for all cancer types was "very low." While we agree with this conclusion, the support for the confidence in the evidence generally was not transparently documented, as the results of the study quality assessment were only provided in scores or ratings. An examination of illustrative case studies shows that some important aspects of study quality domains specific for NSSs generally or aspartame specifically (i.e., issues with the exposure and outcome assessments, the consideration of confounding/covariates, and selection bias) may have been overlooked or not given appropriate consideration, while other aspects that were less likely to have a large impact on overall study quality dominated the results in the two assessments. Our review of other studies published after the WHO [2] review further demonstrates this point. While this may not seem important given the overall lack of associations, it impacts the degree to which evidence supports a lack of effects as opposed to not being adequate to evaluate associations. In the future, aspartame and cancer outcome reviews should focus on those study quality domains that are most likely to impact the interpretation of results and discuss them in a transparent, systematic manner. If there is very low certainty in the evidence as a result of low study quality, reviewers should conclude the evidence is inadequate for making a causal determination.
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.