IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0199558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hypotheses and evidence related to intense sweeteners and effects on appetite and body weight changes: A scoping review of reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Annhild Mosdøl
  • Gunn Elisabeth Vist
  • Camilla Svendsen
  • Hubert Dirven
  • Inger Therese Laugsand Lillegaard
  • Gro Haarklou Mathisen
  • Trine Husøy

Abstract

Observed associations between consumption of diet foods and obesity have sparked controversy over whether intense sweeteners may promote weight gain, despite their negligible energy contribution. We conducted a scoping review of reviews, to obtain an overview of hypotheses, research approaches and features of the evidence on intense sweeteners’ potential relationships to appetite and weight changes. We searched for reviews of the scientific literature published from 2006 to May 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed title and abstracts, and full text publications. Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews guided the process. We extracted and charted data on characteristics of the reviews and the evidence presented. The 40 included reviews present hypotheses both on how intense sweeteners can reduce or maintain body weight and on how these can promote weight gain. We classified only five publications as systematic reviews; another nine presented some systematic approaches, while 26 reviews did not describe criteria for selecting or assessing the primary studies. Evidence was often presented for intense sweeteners as a group or unspecified, and against several comparators (e.g. sugar, water, placebo, intake levels) with limited discussion on the interpretation of different combinations. Apart from the observational studies, the presented primary evidence in humans is dominated by small studies with short follow-up—considered insufficient to assess weight change. Systematic reviews of animal studies are lacking in this topic area. The systematic evidence only partly explore forwarded hypotheses found in the literature. Primary studies in humans seem to be available for systematic exploration of some hypotheses, but long-term experimental studies in humans appear sparse. With few exceptions, the reviews on intense sweeteners and weight change underuse systematic methodology, and thus, the available evidence. Further studies and systematic reviews should be explicit about the hypothesis explored and elucidate possible underlying mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Annhild Mosdøl & Gunn Elisabeth Vist & Camilla Svendsen & Hubert Dirven & Inger Therese Laugsand Lillegaard & Gro Haarklou Mathisen & Trine Husøy, 2018. "Hypotheses and evidence related to intense sweeteners and effects on appetite and body weight changes: A scoping review of reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0199558
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199558
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199558&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0199558?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0199558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.