Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean difference in serum glucose (mmol/L) at 2 hours post-sweetener consumption and overnight fast in all participants

From: A systematic review on the effect of sweeteners on glycemic response and clinically relevant outcomes

Non-

caloric

0.05

0.98

(-1.24,3.25)

Ï„2 =0.65 (0.35,1.10)

0.16

(-1.46,1.80)

consistent

1.19

(-0.56,2.94)

0.07

(-1.45,1.61)

consistent

-0.37

(-2.07,1.29)

-

Sugar

alcohols

0.38

-0.83

(-2.66,1.03)

0.21

(-1.47,1.84)

-0.93

(-2.56,0.70)

consistent

-1.37

(-2.96,0.18)

consistent

-0.40

(-0.79,-0.01)

N = 1

-

Other

sugars

0.01

1.03

(-0.13,2.20)

-0.09

(-1.00,0.81)

consistent

-0.55

(-1.61,0.50)

consistent

-

-

-

Fructose

0.55

-1.12

(-1.95,-0.27)

consistent

-1.56

(-2.18,-1.02)

consistent

0.30

(-1.99,2.58)

N = 2 I2 = 0

Ï„2 = 0

0.41

(-2.44,3.26)

N = 1

-0.28

(-1.67,1.11)

N = 7 I2 = 84

Ï„2 = 1.72

(0.37,1.48)

-0.41

(-1.30,0.47)

N = 9 I2 = 11

Ï„2 = 0.17

(0.58,2.41)

Sucrose/

HFCS/

Honey

0

-0.45

(-1.15,0.21)

consistent

-

-2.20

(-10.46,6.05)

N = 3 I2 = 85

Ï„2 = 9.05

(2.94,32.22)

0.10

(-2.46,2.66)

N = 2 I2 = 0

Ï„2 = 0

-1.40

(-2.05,-0.74)

N = 23 I2 = 77

Ï„2 = 1.4 (0.68,1.50)

-0.31

(-0.53,-0.08)

N = 15 I2 = 0

Ï„2 = 0

(0,0.28)

Glucose

0

  1. HFCS, high fructose corn syrup
  2. The mixed evidence of the Bayesian network analysis are in the upper triangle and the direct evidence calculated using the REML estimate of Ï„2 are in the lower triangle. Sweeteners are reported in the expected order of efficacy[17] (with the exception of other sugars) from the expected lowest to highest 2-hour glucose response, with the estimated probability (or rank) listed in the diagonal. Each table cell contains the mean difference (MD) with the accompanying 95% confidence intervals. In the cells with direct evidence, we also list the number of studies, the I2 (percent of heterogeneity due to between-study heterogeneity) and Ï„2 (the between-study variance). Blank cells in the lower triangle indicate that no direct evidence was available. In the cells with mixed evidence, we list whether the mixed evidence was consistent with the available direct evidence. Also, in the first cell of the mixed evidence, we list the single Ï„2 estimate for the mixed evidence. Results are the MD of the expected higher-ranked sweeteners compared to the expected lower-ranked sweeteners (for example, MD of sugar alcohols versus sucrose is 0.41 and is in column 2, row 5 for the direct results, and is -0.93 and is in column 5, row 2 for the network analysis results). MDs less than zero favor the expected higher-ranked sweetener (smaller glucose response). For example, sugar alcohols show an increased serum glucose response by 0.41 mmol/L compared to sucrose using the direct evidence. However, sugar alcohols show a decreased serum glucose response by 0.93 mmol/L using the mixed evidence. However, since both confidence intervals include zero, neither analysis allows a confident judgment about which sweetener is preferable. Pooled evidence significant at P < 0.05 are presented in bold font. All nine mixed and direct results are consistent.
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us