↓ Skip to main content

Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 1,531)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
553 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape
Published in
Nutrition Journal, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0278-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Szimonetta Lohner, Ingrid Toews, Joerg J. Meerpohl

Abstract

Food products containing non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs) instead of sugar have become increasingly popular in the last decades. Their appeal is obviously related to their calorie-free sweet taste. However, with the dramatic increase in their consumption, it is reasonable and timely to evaluate their potential health benefits and, more importantly, potential adverse effects. The main aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence about health outcomes possibly associated with regular NNS consumption by examining the extent, range, and nature of research activity in this area. We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases for studies on NNSs (artificial sweeteners or natural, non-caloric sweeteners, either used individually or in combination) using text terms with appropriate truncation and relevant indexing terms. All human studies investigating any health outcomes of a NNS intervention or exposure were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language, study design or methodological quality. Data for each health outcome were summarized in tabular form and were discussed narratively. Finally, we included 372 studies in our scoping review, comprising 15 systematic reviews, 155 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 23 non-randomized controlled trials, 57 cohort studies, 52 case-control studies, 28 cross sectional studies and 42 case series/case reports. In healthy subjects, appetite and short term food intake, risk of cancer, risk of diabetes, risk of dental caries, weight gain and risk of obesity are the most investigated health outcomes. Overall there is no conclusive evidence for beneficial and harmful effects on those outcomes. Numerous health outcomes including headaches, depression, behavioral and cognitive effects, neurological effects, risk of preterm delivery, cardiovascular effects or risk of chronic kidney disease were investigated in fewer studies and further research is needed. In subjects with diabetes and hypertension, the evidence regarding health outcomes of NNS use is also inconsistent. This scoping review identifies the needs for future research to address the numerous evidence gaps related to health effects of NNSs use.It also specifies the research questions and areas where a systematic review with meta-analyses is required for the proper evaluation of health outcomes associated to regular NNSs consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 553 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 553 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 107 19%
Student > Master 83 15%
Researcher 47 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 5%
Other 27 5%
Other 76 14%
Unknown 185 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 83 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 2%
Other 71 13%
Unknown 211 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 445. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#63,772
of 25,727,480 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#24
of 1,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,318
of 325,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,727,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.