Parents' and children's acceptance of skim chocolate milks sweetened by monk fruit and stevia leaf extracts. Do sugar-sweetened beverages cause adverse health outcomes in children? A systematic review protocol Tea-induced calmness: Sugar-sweetened tea calms consumers exposed to acute stressor Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Protocol for systematic reviews of determinants/correlates of obesity-related dietary and physical activity behaviors in young children (preschool 0 to 6 years): evidence mapping and syntheses A conversation with Joseph Lau. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Health Warnings and Purchases: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women. The Medical Review Article Revisited: Has the Science Improved? The impact of cash transfers on social determinants of health and health inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol Sweet taste: Effect on cephalic phase insulin release in men Effect of drinking soda sweetened with aspartame or high-fructose corn syrup on food intake and body weight. The Effects of Maternal Supplementation of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids on Visual, Neurobehavioural, and Developmental Outcomes of the Child: A Systematic Review of the Randomized Trials Effect of sugar-sweetened beverages on body weight in children: design and baseline characteristics of the Double-blind, Randomized INtervention study in Kids. A systematic review of strategies to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among 0-year to 5-year olds. Consumption of sweet beverages and type 2 diabetes incidence in European adults: results from EPIC-InterAct Digital Education in Health Professions: The Need for Overarching Evidence Synthesis Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews.
Chocolate milk increases milk consumption of children , but high sugar content raises health concerns . Interest in sugar reduction and parents ' preference for natural sweeteners necessitates further research on natural nonnutritive sweeteners . However , it is important to maintain consumer acceptability , especially for children , while reducing sugar in chocolate milk . The objectives of this study were to identify the sweetness intensity perception of stevia leaf ( STV ) and monk fruit ( MK ) extracts in skim chocolate milk ( SCM ) , to evaluate STV and MK as the sole or partial sweetener source for SCM for young adults ( 19 to 35 y ) and children ( 5 to 13 y ) , and to determine if information on natural nonnutritive sweeteners impacted parents ' acceptability of SCM . Power function and 2-alternative forced choice studies were used to determine the iso-sweetness of nonnutritive sweeteners to a sucrose control in SCM ( 51.4 g/L , SUC control ) . Young adults ( n = 131 ) evaluated 9 different SCM ( SUC control , STV , MK , STV : sucrose blends , or MK : sucrose blends ) in a completely r and omized 2-d test . Children ( n = 167 ) evaluated SUC control SCM and SCM with 39.7 g/L sucrose and 46 mg/L MK ( MK25 ) or 30 mg/L STV ( STV25 ) . Parents evaluated SUC control , MK25 , and STV25 in a balanced crossover design with a 40-d wait time between primed or unprimed ballots . Chocolate milks solely sweetened by nonnutritive sweeteners were less acceptable compared with SUC control by young adults . MK25 and STV25 were acceptable by young adults and children . The presentation of chocolate milk label information had different effects on parental acceptance . Traditional parents preferred sucrose sweetened SCM , and label conscious parents preferred SCM with natural nonnutritive sweeteners Background Cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes are examples of chronic diseases that impose significant morbidity and mortality in the general population worldwide . Most chronic diseases are associated with underlying preventable risk factors , such as elevated blood pressure , high blood glucose or glucose intolerance , high lipid levels , physical inactivity , excessive sedentary behaviours , and overweight/obesity . The occurrence of intermediate outcomes during childhood increases the risk of disease in adulthood . Sugar-sweetened beverages are known to be significant sources of additional caloric intake , and given recent attention to their contribution in the development of chronic diseases , a systematic review is warranted . We will assess whether the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in children is associated with adverse health outcomes and what the potential moderating factors are . Methods / Design Of interest are studies addressing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption , taking a broad perspective . Both direct consumption studies as well as those evaluating interventions that influence consumption ( e.g. school policy , educational ) will be relevant . Non-specific or multi-faceted behavioural , educational , or policy interventions may also be included subject to the level of evidence that exists for the other interventions /exposures . Comparisons of interest and endpoints of interest are pre-specified . We will include r and omized controlled trials , controlled clinical trials , interrupted time series studies , controlled before-after studies , prospect i ve and retrospective comparative cohort studies , case – control studies , and nested case – control design s. The MEDLINE ® , Embase , The Cochrane Library , CINAHL , ERIC , and PsycINFO ® data bases and grey literature sources will be search ed . The processes for selecting studies , abstract ing data , and resolving conflicts are described . We will assess risk of bias using design -specific tools . To determine sets of confounding variables that should be adjusted for , we have developed causal directed acyclic graphs and will use those to inform our risk of bias assessment s. Meta- analysis will be conducted where appropriate ; parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity and effect modifiers are pre-specified . The Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ( GRADE ) approach will be used to determine the quality of evidence for outcomes . Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014009641 The food and beverage industry has been increasingly replacing sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners in their sweetened products to control or reduce total calories . Research comparing the effect of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners on emotional state of participants exposed to acute stressors is still limited . This study aim ed to determine the effect of drinking tea sweetened with either a nutritive sweetener ( sugar ) or a non-nutritive sweetener ( sucralose or stevia ) on emotional state , in terms of calmness and pleasantness , of participants exposed to an acute stressor . Effects of acute stress on sweetness intensity and overall liking of tea beverages were also determined . Results showed that the possibility of tea-induced calmness , calculated as the difference between calmness ratings after and before drinking a tea sample , was established on stress session in the sugar-sweetened tea .  Overall liking , but not the sweetness intensity , of the sugar-sweetened tea was affected by acute stress . In conclusion , this study provides empirical evidence that the consumption of tea sweetened with nutritive sweetener , but not with non-nutritive sweetener , has calming effect on consumers with acute stress , suggesting that this effect may not be due to the sweet taste of sugar , but due to the caloric nature of the sweetener Aims : With the increase in the number of systematic review s available , a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of review s of existing systematic review s. Syntheses of existing systematic review s are referred to by many different names , one of which is an umbrella review . An umbrella review allows the findings of review s relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted . An umbrella review 's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence , namely other systematic review s and meta-analyses . A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop method ological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review , including diverse types of evidence , both quantitative and qualitative . The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review . Methods : Discussion and testing of the elements of methods for the conduct of an umbrella review were held over a 6-month period by members of a methodology working group . The working group comprised six participants who corresponded via teleconference , e-mail and face-to-face meeting during this development period . In October 2013 , the methodology was presented in a workshop at the Joanna Briggs Institute Convention . Workshop participants , review authors and method ologists provided further testing , critique and feedback on the proposed methodology . Results : This study describes the methodology and methods developed for the conduct of an umbrella review that includes published systematic review s and meta-analyses as the analytical unit of the review . Details are provided regarding the essential elements of an umbrella review , including presentation of the review question in a Population , Intervention , Comparator , Outcome format , nuances of the inclusion criteria and search strategy . A critical appraisal tool with 10 questions to help assess risk of bias in systematic review s and meta-analyses was also developed and tested . Relevant details to extract from included review s and how to best present the findings of both quantitative and qualitative systematic review s in a reader friendly format are provided . Conclusions : Umbrella review s provide a ready means for decision makers in healthcare to gain a clear underst and ing of a broad topic area . The umbrella review methodology described here is the first to consider review s that report other than quantitative evidence derived from r and omized controlled trials . The methodology includes an easy to use and informative summary of evidence table to readily provide decision makers with the available , highest level of evidence relevant to the question posed Traditional clinical review articles , also known as up date s , differ from systematic review s and meta-analyses . Up date s selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly . Non-quantitative systematic review s comprehensively examine the medical literature , seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment . Meta-analyses ( quantitative systematic review s ) seek to answer a focused clinical question , using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies . This article presents guidelines for writing an evidence -based clinical review article for American Family Physician . First , the topic should be of common interest and relevance to family practice . Include a table of the continuing medical education objectives of the review . State how the literature search was done and include several sources of evidence -based review s , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , BMJ 's Clinical Evidence , or the InfoRetriever Web site . Where possible , use evidence based on clinical outcomes relating to morbidity , mortality , or quality of life , and studies of primary care population s. In articles su bmi tted to American Family Physician , rate the level of evidence for key recommendations according to the following scale : level A ( r and omized controlled trial [ RCT ] , meta- analysis ) ; level B ( other evidence ) ; level C ( consensus/expert opinion ) . Finally , provide a table of key summary points Background The aim of these review s is to inform the design and content of interventions to reduce obesity in young children . The behaviors that are associated with obesity/overweight have been studied extensively ; however , the factors associated with these behaviors in young children ( 0 to 6 years ) have not been systematic ally review ed . Over the past few years the focus of obesity prevention has shifted to preschool children because of the high prevalence of obesity at school entry and recognition that habits formed in early life could track into adulthood . In order to develop effective interventions and change behavior , it is important to underst and the factors that are associated with those behaviors . For example , we need to underst and whether it would be more important to target the family , childcare setting s or the wider environment and identify the most effective way of changing these energy balance related behaviors . Methods / Design Quantitative ( intervention and observational ) and qualitative literature on determinants/correlates of fruit and vegetable intake , sugar sweetened beverage and other unhealthy diet intake , and physical activity and sedentary behaviors in young children will be systematic ally identified , mapped and review ed . A common search strategy ( no language or period restrictions ) will be used to identify papers from eight electronic data bases and this will be supplemented by h and - search ing . Next , studies in developed countries that examine the factors associated with these behaviors in children aged 0 to 6 years ( at baseline ) will be screened and mapped descriptively followed by in-depth data extraction , quality assessment and synthesis . Data from quantitative studies will be summarized using either forest plots or harvest plots and narrative synthesis , and qualitative studies using thematic analysis . Qualitative evidence will be integrated with the quantitative evidence , using a parallel synthesis approach , to provide a deeper underst and ing of effective strategies to influence these energy balance related behaviors . Discussion In addition to updating and mapping current research , these review s will be the first to comprehensively synthesize and integrate both the quantitative and qualitative evidence pertaining to determinants/correlates/barriers/facilitators of obesity related behaviors in this young age group ( 0 to 6 years ) with the aim of informing future interventions . Systematic review registration International Prospect i ve Register for Systematic Review s ( PROSPERO ) Registration number : Dr. Joseph Lau is a world-leading expert in meta- analysis and systematic review s. Currently a professor in the Department of Health Services , Policy and Practice and co-director of the Center for Evidence -based Medicine at Brown University , Professor Lau has applied evidence -based methods to a variety of clinical , biomedical and healthcare topics ; has developed reliable and efficient methods and tools to conduct systematic review s and meta-analyses ; and has advanced an underst and ing on the impact of factors that may contribute to differences of results in scientific studies . His past research includes cumulative meta- analysis of r and omized controlled trials , comparison of results from large trials and meta-analyses of small trials , effect of baseline risk in the interpretation of clinical trial results , and empirical evaluation of existing methods of combining data . His current focus is on a Web-based repository of systematic review data , review s of diagnostic tests , nutrition , clinical practice guidelines , and dissemination of evidence -based methods to varied health-care disciplines . This report is a conversation from an adapted version of an interview , more or less chronologically arranged , between Joseph C. Cappelleri as interviewer and Joseph Lau as interviewee , with Meghan Ingerick recording and transcribing the interview INTRODUCTION Five U.S. states have proposed policies to require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages , but warnings ' effects on actual purchase behavior remain uncertain . This study evaluated the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases . STUDY DESIGN Participants completed one study visit to a life-sized replica of a convenience store in North Carolina . Participants chose six items ( two beverages , two foods , and two household products ) . One item was r and omly selected for them to purchase and take home . Participants also completed a question naire . Research ers collected data in 2018 and conducted analyses in 2019 . SETTING / PARTICIPANTS Participants were a demographically diverse convenience sample of 400 adult sugar-sweetened beverage consumers ( usual consumption ≥12 ounces/week ) . INTERVENTION Research staff r and omly assigned participants to a health warning arm ( sugar-sweetened beverages in the store displayed a front-of-package health warning ) or a control arm ( sugar-sweetened beverages displayed a control label ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary trial outcome was sugar-sweetened beverage calories purchased . Secondary outcomes included reactions to trial labels ( e.g. , negative emotions ) and sugar-sweetened beverage perceptions and attitudes ( e.g. , healthfulness ) . RESULTS All 400 participants completed the trial and were included in analyses . Health warning arm participants were less likely to be Hispanic and to have overweight/obesity than control arm participants . In intent-to-treat analyses adjusting for Hispanic ethnicity and overweight/obesity , health warnings led to lower sugar-sweetened beverage purchases ( adjusted difference , -31.4 calories ; 95 % CI= -57.9 , -5.0 ) . Unadjusted analyses yielded similar results ( difference , -32.9 calories ; 95 % CI= -58.9 , -7.0 ) . Compared with the control label , sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings also led to higher intentions to limit sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and elicited more attention , negative emotions , thinking about the harms of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption , and anticipated social interactions . Trial arms did not differ on perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverages ' added sugar content , healthfulness , appeal/coolness , or disease risk . CONCLUSIONS Brief exposure to health warnings reduced sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in this naturalistic RCT . Sugar-sweetened beverage health warning policies could discourage sugar-sweetened beverage consumption . TRIAL REGISTRATION This study is registered at www . clinical trials.gov NCT03511937 BACKGROUND Consumption of sugar-sweetened soda has been associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease . The relation with cerebrovascular disease has not yet been closely examined . OBJECTIVE Our objective was to examine patterns of soda consumption and substitution of alternative beverages for soda in relation to stroke risk . DESIGN The Nurses ' Health Study , a prospect i ve cohort study of 84,085 women followed for 28 y ( 1980 - 2008 ) , and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study , a prospect i ve cohort study of 43,371 men followed for 22 y ( 1986 - 2008 ) , provided data on soda consumption and incident stroke . RESULTS We documented 1416 strokes in men during 841,770 person-years of follow-up and 2938 strokes in women during 2,188,230 person-years of follow-up .  The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d , compared with none , was 1.16 ( 95 % CI : 1.00 , 1.34 ) . The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of low-calorie soda/d , compared with none , was 1.16 ( 95 % CI : 1.05 , 1.28 ) . Compared with 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d , 1 serving of decaffeinated coffee/d was associated with a 10 % ( 95 % CI : 1 % , 19 % ) lower risk of stroke and 1 serving of caffeinated coffee/d with a 9 % ( 95 % CI : 0 % , 17 % ) lower risk . Similar estimated reductions in risk were seen for substitution of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee for low-calorie soda . CONCLUSIONS Greater consumption of sugar-sweetened and low-calorie sodas was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke . This risk may be reduced by substituting alternative beverages for soda Review articles are an important element of most medical journals and a popular source of information for clinicians ( 1 ) . Given the increasing volume of medical literature and the limited time for reading that busy clinicians have , reliance on review articles is likely to increase . However , concerns have been raised that narrative , non systematic review articles may produce biased conclusions ( 2 , 3 ) . Mulrow ( 4 ) examined 50 review articles published in four major medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Annals of Internal Medicine , JAMA , and Archives of Internal Medicine ) in 1985 - 1986 and found that none fulfilled 8 explicit criteria for scientifically sound summaries of the evidence . As a result , she and others ( 5 , 6 ) proposed criteria for conducting and evaluating review articles that would improve their quality ; these criteria are the first 10 listed in the Appendix Table . In a study of 36 review articles done by nine content experts and method ologists , these criteria were shown to yield reliable and valid estimates of the scientific quality of review s ( 7 , 8) . We sought to describe the methods used in recently published review articles and determine whether the attention paid to the method ologic shortcomings of review articles has led to improvements in their scientific quality . Methods By using the Science Citation Index ( 9 ) , we stratified the 12 general medicine journals that are considered core journals for ACP Journal Club ( 10 ) into those with high impact factors ( scores 5 ) and those with lower impact factors . We r and omly selected 3 ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Annals of Internal Medicine , and JAMA ) of the 4 high-impact core journals and 3 ( British Medical Journal , American Journal of Medicine , and Journal of Internal Medicine ) of the 8 core journals with lower impact factors . The sampling frame included 3 of the 4 journals examined in Mulrow 's original study ( 4 ) . All 6 journals were h and - search ed by two of the investigators independently , and review articles published between January and December 1996 were retrieved . Review articles were defined as full-text articles published under the banner review that dealt with disease states ; had the words review , overview , or meta- analysis in the title or abstract ; or indicated in the text that the intention was to review or summarize the literature about a clinical topic . Editorials , correspondence , and conference summaries were excluded . Disagreements on article eligibility ( which occurred in five cases ) were resolved by consensus . After training with a test set of articles , five of the authors used explicit criteria ( Appendix Table ) to rate the identified review articles . So that the raters ' assessment s would be blinded , the articles ' authors , author affiliations , and sources of articles were masked . The first 10 criteria in the Appendix Table ( hereafter referred to as method ologic criteria ) have been previously vali date d ( 7 ) and assess method ologic rigor , whereas the last five criteria were developed for this study to evaluate the scientific basis of treatment recommendations . Because inter-rater agreement was excellent on the test set ( overall agreement , 94 % ) , each rater was assigned a r and om sample of 20 % of the articles . One rater independently evaluated a r and om sample of five articles from each rater to assess inter-rater reliability for the criteria . The mean value was 0.79 , indicating substantial agreement ; overall agreement was 95 % and ranged from 84 % for criteria 1 and 6 to 100 % for criteria 2 , 3 , and 5 . After we determined the number of criteria fulfilled by each article , the number of articles meeting each criterion was ascertained . The proportion of review s from high-impact journals and from lower-impact journals that met each criterion were compared . Only the subset of review s containing treatment recommendations were used for the comparisons for criteria 7 to 15 . The chi-square test was used and 95 % CIs for the observed differences were calculated for all comparisons . In addition , articles identified as meta-analyses , systematic review s , or overviews in their title , abstract , or text were compared with the remaining review articles for each criterion ( again by using the chi-square test and by limiting analysis to those that included treatment recommendations for criteria 7 to 15 ) . Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for journal of publication . The funding organizations were not involved in the design , conduct , analysis , or reporting of this study . Results A total of 158 review articles were identified : 60 from The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , 33 from Annals of Internal Medicine , 24 from British Medical Journal , 18 from American Journal of Medicine , 13 from JAMA , and 10 from Journal of Internal Medicine . ( A full list of the included articles is available from Dr. McAlister on request . ) Most review s were written by more than one author ( median number of authors , 2 [ range , 1 to 10 authors ] ) , and 111 review s ( 70 % ) made treatment recommendations . Although most articles had sections review ing the relevant pathophysiology and pharmacodynamics , 19 articles ( 12 % ) were largely basic science review s. Only 2 review s met all 10 method ologic criteria ; the median number of criteria fulfilled was one ( Figure ) . Nineteen ( 12 % ) of the review articles were described as meta- analysis , systematic review , or overview in the title or abstract ; 12 of these 19 articles were published in high-impact journals . A higher proportion of these articles met the method ologic criteria ( Appendix Table ) ; the comparisons for all but criterion 6 were statistically significant , even after adjustment for journal of publication ( P<0.005 for all comparisons ) . Although there was significant heterogeneity among journals ( P<0.005 for criteria 1 to 5 , 7 , and 8) , review articles published in high-impact journals did not meet method ologic criteria more frequently than those published in other journals ( Table ) . Exclusion of the review s from one journal with method ologic scores that were significantly lower than the rest ( P<0.001 for all comparisons ) resolved much of the interjournal heterogeneity and revealed that review s published in the remaining high-impact journals more often met some ( but not all ) of the method ologic criteria ( Table ) . Figure . Percentage of 158 review articles published in 1996 that fulfilled specific method ologic criteria . Table . Comparison of Methods Used in 1996 Review Articles , by Journal Impact Factor The 44 articles that described how evidence was located used the following sources ( which were not mutually exclusive ) : MEDLINE ( 42 articles ) , h and search of reference lists from published studies or review articles ( 30 articles ) , other electronic data bases ( 14 articles ) , contact with experts in the field ( 10 articles ) , h and search of relevant journals ( 7 articles ) , and contact with the pharmaceutical industry ( 5 articles ) . Of the 22 review s that included a description of the electronic search strategy , the search was restricted to English- language publications in 11 . Of the 111 review s in which treatment recommendations were made , a median of 3 therapies ( range , 1 to 23 therapies ) were discussed . The 16 meta-analyses that included treatment recommendations were more focused , examining a median of 1 therapy ( range , 1 to 6 therapies ) . The scientific basis of these recommendations is outlined in the last five criteria of the Appendix Table . Discussion In summary , only a minority of the review articles published in six widely read general medical journals specified rigorous , systematic methods of identifying , evaluating , and synthesizing the evidence , thereby raising concerns about the validity of their conclusions and recommendations ( 11 ) . Furthermore , although most review articles made recommendations for therapeutic options , their clinical relevance may be limited : Only one third discussed benefits and harms of the treatment options , only 6 % mentioned the relative or absolute costs of the various options , less than half provided an estimate of the anticipated treatment effect , and very few presented the results in clinical ly relevant formats that would be easily understood by clinicians . Although there is still substantial room for improvement , these results do represent progress from the situation in 1985 - 1986 ( Appendix Table ) . A higher proportion of recently published review s specify how the evidence was identified and synthesized . This same pattern was observed in a recent study of oncology review articles published in a single journal between 1983 and 1995 ( 12 ) . Similarly , our findings for meta-analyses published in these journals in 1996 are consistent with contemporaneous investigations in other fields and represent substantial improvement over the state of affairs in the mid-1980s ( 13 , 14 ) . Our study had several potential limitations . First , the authors of articles in which systematic methods were not specified may have used such methods but not reported them ( or the journal may have removed the details of the methods in prepublication ) . However , preliminary evidence suggests that there is little difference between the conduct of studies and their published methods ( 7 , 15 ) . In other words , if what was done is not reported , there is a good chance that it was not done rigorously ( 7 ) . Second , our finding that meta-analyses are more scientifically rigorous than other review s may be seen as tautological because the criteria used in this study may be used by meta-analysts in performing their studies . However , meta-analysts disagree over some issues of methodology , and published meta-analyses often vary in the quality of their reports ( 13 ) . Third , the practical importance of the method ologic flaws identified in these review s is difficult to ascertain . We lack empirical evidence that review s with explicit , systematic methods yield results closer to the truth , but it is known that non systematic review s are more prone to r and om and Background There is increasing pressure to address the social determinants of health ( SDoH ) and health inequities through the implementation of culturally acceptable interventions particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa ( SSA ) where health outcomes are generally poor . Available evaluation research on cash transfers ( CTs ) suggests that the programs may influence the wider determinants of health in SSA ; yet , there has been no attempt to synthesize the evidence regarding their contribution to tackling the SDoH and health inequalities . To date , nearly all the review s on CTs ' impact on health have predominantly featured evidence from Latin America with limited transferability to the social , cultural , and political environments in SSA . Therefore , the aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review to assess the role of CTs in tackling the wider determinants of health and health inequalities in SSA . Methods / design A systematic review of published and unpublished literature on CTs ’ impact on health and health determinants covering the period 2000–2016 will be undertaken . Studies will be considered for inclusion if they present quantitative or qualitative data , including all relevant study design s. The SDoH conceptual framework will be used to guide the data extraction process . EPPI Review er software will be used for data management and analysis . Studies included in the review will be analyzed by narrative synthesis and /or meta- analysis as appropriate for the nature of the data retrieved . Discussion This review will provide empirical evidence on the impact of CTs on SDoH to inform CT policy , implementation , and research in SSA . The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis Protocol s ( PRISMA -P ) . Systematic review registration This protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO international prospect i ve register of systematic review s , reference CRD42015025015 To determine whether sweet-tasting solutions are effective elicitors of cephalic phase insulin release ( CPIR ) in humans , two studies were conducted using nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners as stimuli . Normal weight men sipped and spit four different solutions : water , aspartame , saccharin , and sucrose . A fifth condition involved a modified sham-feed with apple pie . The five stimuli were administered in counterbalanced order , each on a separate day . In study 1 , subjects tasted the stimuli for 1 min ( n = 15 ) and in study 2 ( n = 16 ) , they tasted the stimuli for 3 min . Arterialized venous blood was drawn to establish a baseline and then at 1 min poststimulus , followed by every 2 min for 15 min and then every 5 min for 15 min . In both study 1 and study 2 , no significant increases in plasma insulin were observed after subjects tasted the sweetened solutions . In contrast , significant increases in plasma insulin occurred after the modified sham-feed with both the 1 min and 3 min exposure . These results suggest that nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners in solution are not adequate stimuli for the elicitation of CPIR To examine whether artificial sweeteners aid in the control of long-term food intake and body weight , we gave free-living , normal-weight subjects 1150 g soda sweetened with aspartame ( APM ) or high-fructose corn syrup ( HFCS ) per day . Relative to when no soda was given , drinking APM-sweetened soda for 3 wk significantly reduced calorie intake of both females ( n = 9 ) and males ( n = 21 ) and decreased the body weight of males but not of females . However , drinking HFCS-sweetened soda for 3 wk significantly increased the calorie intake and body weight of both sexes . Ingesting either type of soda reduced intake of sugar from the diet without affecting intake of other nutrients . Drinking large volumes of APM-sweetened soda , in contrast to drinking HFCS-sweetened soda , reduces sugar intake and thus may facilitate the control of calorie intake and body weight Polyunsaturated fatty acid ( PUFA ) use in pregnancy has been promoted as beneficial for visual and neurobehavioural development in the fetus . However , no systematic review of the r and omized trials has been conducted . The objective of this review was to evaluate potential advantages of this regiment by review ing all r and omized trials in pregnancy . Methods . Systematic review of r and omized controlled studies comparing cognitive and visual achievements among infants whose mothers were treated and untreated with PUFA during gestation . Results . Nine studies met the inclusion criteria , three focusing on  visual and six on neurobehavioural development . Due to differing outcome measurements in the infants , the studies could not be combined into a formal meta- analysis . Synthesizing the existing data , for both visual and neurobehavioural development , most studies could not show sustained benefits to infant cognition or visual development . Conclusion . At the present time a recommendation to change practice and supplement all expecting mothers with PUFA  to improve offspring vision or neurobehavioural function is not supported by existing evidence BACKGROUND Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with overweight in observational studies . A possible explanation is that liquid sugars do not satiate and that their intake is not compensated by reduced caloric intake from other foods . However , evidence from intervention studies for this hypothesis is inconclusive because previous studies were not blinded . Hence results may have been influenced by expectations and behavioral cues rather than by physiological mechanisms . METHODS We design ed the Double-blind , R and omized INtervention study in Kids ( DRINK ) to examine the effect on body weight of covertly replacing sugar-sweetened by sugar-free beverages .  Children were only eligible if they habitually drank sugar-sweetened beverages . We recruited 642 healthy children ( mean age 8.2 , range 4.8 - 11.9 ) . We design ed , tested and produced custom-made beverages containing 10 % sugar and sugar-free beverages with the same sweet taste and look . Children receive one 250 mL can of study beverage daily for 18 months . We perform body measurements at 0 , 6 , 12 and 18 months . The primary outcome is the z-score of BMI for age . The maximum predicted difference in this score between groups is 0.72 , which corresponds with a difference in body weight of 2.3 kg . DISCUSSION The double-blind design eliminates behavioral factors that affect body weight . If children gain less body fat when drinking sugar-free than when drinking sugar-sweetened beverages that would show that liquid sugar indeed bypasses biological satiation mechanisms . It would also suggest that a reduction in liquid sugars could decrease body fat more effectively than reduction of other calorie sources OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to summarize evidence for strategies design ed to reduce  sugar-sweetened beverage ( SSB )  consumption among children aged 0 to 5 years . DATA SOURCES PubMed , Web of Science , EMBASE , CINAHL , ERIC , Cab Abstract s and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials are the electronic data bases search ed in this systematic review . STUDY SELECTION Each included study evaluated an intervention to reduce SSB consumption in children aged 0 to 5 years , was conducted in a high-income country and was published between 1 January 2000 and 15 December 2017 . DATA SYNTHESIS Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria . The primary intervention setting s were healthcare ( n = 11 ) , preschool/daycare ( n = 4 ) , home ( n = 3 ) , community venues ( n = 3 ) and other setting s ( n = 6 ) . Overarching strategies which successfully reduced SSB consumption included ( i ) in-person individual education , ( ii ) in-person group education , ( iii ) passive education ( e.g. pamphlets ) , ( iv ) use of technology , ( v ) training for childcare/healthcare providers and ( vi ) changes to the physical access of beverages . Studies were of moderate method ological quality ( average score of 20.7/29.0 for r and omized studies ; 3.1/9.0 for non-r and omized studies ) . CONCLUSIONS Evidence suggests that interventions successful at reducing SSB consumption among 0-year to 5-year olds often focused on vulnerable population s , were conducted in preschool/daycare setting s , specifically targeted only SSBs or only oral hygiene , included multiple intervention strategies and had higher intervention intensity/contact time Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has been shown , largely in American population s , to increase type 2 diabetes incidence . We aim ed to evaluate the association of consumption of sweet beverages ( juices and nectars , sugar-sweetened soft drinks and artificially sweetened soft drinks ) with  type 2 diabetes incidence in European adults . We established a case – cohort study including 12,403 incident type 2 diabetes cases and a stratified subcohort of 16,154 participants selected from eight European cohorts participating in the European Prospect i ve Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition ( EPIC ) study . After exclusions , the final sample size included 11,684 incident cases and a subcohort of 15,374 participants . Cox proportional hazards regression models ( modified for the case – cohort design ) and r and om-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the association between sweet beverage consumption ( obtained from vali date d dietary question naires ) and type 2 diabetes incidence . In adjusted models , one 336 g ( 12 oz ) daily increment in sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with HRs for type 2 diabetes of 1.22 ( 95 % CI 1.09 , 1.38 ) and 1.52 ( 95 % CI 1.26 , 1.83 ) , respectively . After further adjustment for energy intake and BMI , the association of sugar-sweetened soft drinks with type 2 diabetes persisted ( HR 1.18 , 95 % CI 1.06 , 1.32 ) , but the association of artificially sweetened soft drinks became statistically not significant ( HR 1.11 , 95 % CI 0.95 , 1.31 ) . Juice and nectar consumption was not associated with type 2 diabetes incidence . This study corroborates the association between increased incidence of type 2 diabetes and high consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks in European adults Synthesizing evidence from r and omized controlled trials of  digital health education  poses some challenges . These include a lack of clear categorization of digital health education in the literature ; constantly evolving concepts , pedagogies , or theories ; and a multitude of methods , features , technologies , or delivery setting s. The Digital Health Education Collaboration was established to evaluate the evidence on digital education in health professions ; inform policymakers , educators , and students ; and ultimately , change the way in which these professionals learn and are taught . The aim of this paper is to present the overarching methodology that we use to synthesize evidence across our digital health education review s and to discuss challenges related to the process . For our research , we followed Cochrane recommendations for the conduct of systematic review s ; all review s are reported according to the PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses ) guidance . This included assembling experts in various digital health education fields ; identifying gaps in the evidence base ; formulating focused research questions , aims , and outcome measures ; choosing appropriate search terms and data bases ; defining inclusion and exclusion criteria ; running the search es jointly with librarians and information specialists ; managing abstract s ; retrieving full-text versions of papers ; extracting and storing large data sets , critically appraising the quality of studies ; analyzing data ; discussing findings ; drawing meaningful conclusions ; and drafting research papers . The approach used for synthesizing evidence from digital health education trials is commonly regarded as the most rigorous benchmark for conducting systematic review s. Although we acknowledge the presence of certain biases ingrained in the process , we have clearly highlighted and minimized those biases by strictly adhering to scientific rigor , method ological integrity , and st and ard operating procedures . This paper will be a valuable asset for research ers and method ologists undertaking systematic review s in digital health education AIMS To analyse the effect on systematic review s in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in medline , and to assess the impact of adding trials from other data bases and the grey literature . METHODS All systematic review s of diabetes interventions which included a meta- analysis of r and omized controlled trials , and were published since 1996 , were selected . The impact on the meta- analysis of including only those trials indexed in medline , and the effect of then adding trials from other sources , was assessed . Where possible this was measured quantitatively , by redoing the meta- analysis , otherwise a qualitative estimate was made . RESULTS Forty-four systematic review s met our inclusion criteria . There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in medline . These came from 52 % of the review s. In 34 % of the review s , basing a meta- analysis on a search of only medline would miss trials that could affect the result . Sources of non- medline data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from central and embase ( mainly in Diabetes , Nutrition and Metabolism ) and unpublished data ( mainly from industry ) . The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine , mostly indexed in Chinese language data bases . CONCLUSIONS A search of only the medline data base is insufficient for systematic review s of diabetes , because in about 34 % of review s the missed trials could affect the results of the meta- analysis . It is recommended that central ( on the Cochrane Library ) also be search ed . Scanning meeting abstract s , and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced At the end of a long week in the office , you sink back into your chair , reflecting on some of the more memorable patients you cared for and counseled . Through gentle history taking , you discovered that urinary incontinence is the underlying cause of an elderly patient 's increasing social isolation . During a careful physical examination , you detected bruising on the torso of a woman with chronic headaches and began to explore the longst and ing abusive relationship between the woman and her alcoholic partner . You discontinued procainamide therapy in a 72-year-old man who had asymptomatic premature ventricular contractions after myocardial infa rct ion . To prevent bleeding from esophageal varices , you started -blocker therapy in a woman with long-st and ing cryptogenic cirrhosis and portal hypertension . In couples ' therapy , discussing the future quality of life of a middle-aged gay man with human immunodeficiency virus infection , you journeyed through emotionally intense dialogue about advance directives . You presented the risk factors for major and minor bleeding to a 39-year-old woman who was considering warfarin therapy because of recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease . You listened to , made diagnoses for , treated , advised , and comforted many patients . Yet there were some hiccoughs in your practice along the way . You stumbled while debating the pros and cons of breast cancer screening with a healthy 48-year-old woman who has been staying current with information on the Internet . You question ed the merits of a personalized walking program suggested to you by a motivated 66-year-old man with severe claudication . Explaining that you wanted to review the best current evidence on these issues , you resolved to address your uncertainties before these patients made their next office visits , in a week 's time . Sighing deeply , you acknowledge that you have little time to read . You subscribe to three journals , which you browse months after they arrive-either when your journal stack becomes precariously high or when your guilt is sufficiently motivational . You sometimes find the conclusions of individual articles conflicting or confusing . You know that some of the decisions and suggestions you made this week , specifically your decisions about stopping procainamide therapy and starting -blocker therapy and your advice about bleeding risks from anticoagulant therapy , were based on the best current research evidence [ 1 - 3 ] . On the other h and , your patients ' inquiries about breast cancer screening and exercise treatment for claudication highlight your need for a concise , current , rigorous synthesis of the best available evidence on each of these topics : in brief , a systematic review [ 4 , 5 ] . Incorporating Research Evidence into Clinical Decision Making The foregoing scenario is familiar to practitioners . In a typical week , we encounter patients with diverse problems ; exercise numerous clinical , interpersonal , and technical skills ; and make many decisions . The factors that affect these decisions and their outcomes are complex . For instance , each patient has unique sociodemographic characteristics , cultural circumstances , and personal preferences . Each physician has unique knowledge , experiences , and values . Moreover , practitioners and their patients make decisions within the context of a rapidly changing health care system that influences the availability , accessibility , and cost of diagnostic tests and therapies [ 6 ] . Timely , useful evidence from the biomedical literature should be an integral component of clinical decision making . If one treatment has been shown to be better than another , we need to know , so that we can recommend the treatment to the appropriate patients . The worldwide effort to develop new tests and treatments , and to determine their usefulness , has never been stronger , and our patients and their families expect us to be fonts of the knowledge that results from this effort [ 7 ] . Unfortunately , it is easy for current best research evidence to pass us by [ 8 ] . We may lack the time , motivation , and basic skills needed to find , critically appraise , and synthesize information , all of which we must do if we are to integrate the results of original studies into our practice . Fortunately , several potent methods are emerging that can greatly enhance our ability to interpret and apply research evidence ; foremost among them is the systematic review . This article begins a series in Annals that will examine systematic review s in detail and explore their many applications . Systematic review s represent the best chance that most practitioners will have to underst and and accurately apply the key signals arising from the robust and increasingly productive search for solutions to medical problems . A properly conducted systematic review faithfully summarizes the evidence from all relevant studies on the topic of interest , and it does so concisely and transparently . What Is a Systematic Review ? Systematic review s are scientific investigations in themselves , with pre-planned methods and an assembly of original studies as their subjects . They synthesize the results of multiple primary investigations by using strategies that limit bias and r and om error [ 9 , 10 ] . These strategies include a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant articles and the use of explicit , reproducible criteria in the selection of articles for review . Primary research design s and study characteristics are appraised , data are synthesized , and results are interpreted . When the results of primary studies are summarized but not statistically combined , the review may be called a qualitative systematic review . A quantitative systematic review , or meta- analysis , is a systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine the results of two or more studies . The term overview is sometimes used to denote a systematic review , whether quantitative or qualitative . Summaries of research that lack explicit descriptions of systematic methods are often called narrative review s. Review articles are one type of integrative publication ; practice guidelines , economic evaluations , and clinical decision analyses are others . These other types of integrative articles often incorporate the results of systematic review s. For example , practice guidelines are systematic ally developed statements intended to assist practitioners and patients with decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances [ 11 ] . Evidence -based practice guidelines are based on systematic review s of the literature , appropriately adapted to local circumstances and values . Economic evaluations compare both the costs and the consequences of different courses of action ; the knowledge of consequences that are considered in these evaluations is often generated by systematic review s of primary studies . Decision analyses quantify both the likelihood and the valuation of the expected outcomes associated with competing alternatives . Differences between Systematic and Narrative Review s All review s , narrative and systematic alike , are retrospective , observational research studies and are therefore subject to systematic and r and om error . Accordingly , the quality of a review - and thus its worth-depends on the extent to which scientific review methods have been used to minimize error and bias . This is the key feature that distinguishes traditional narrative review s from systematic review s ( Table 1 ) . If a review is prepared according to the steps outlined in the right column of Table 1 , it is more likely to be systematic and to provide unbiased conclusions . If review methods approximate those found in the middle column of Table 1 , the article is more likely to be a narrative review , and the conclusions are less likely to be based on an unbiased summary of all relevant evidence . Table 1 . Differences between Narrative Review s and Systematic Review s Systematic review s are generated to answer specific , often narrow , clinical questions in depth . These questions can be formulated explicitly according to four variables : a specific population and setting ( such as elderly out patients ) , the condition of interest ( for example , hypertension ) , an exposure to a test or treatment ( such as pharmacologic management ) , and one or more specific outcomes ( such as cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and mortality ) [ 12 ] . Thus , an example of a well-formulated , clinical ly relevant question is , Does pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in the elderly prevent strokes and myocardial infa rct ions or delay death ? If the question that is driving the review is not clear from the title , abstract , or introduction , or if no methods section is included , the paper is more likely to be a narrative review than a systematic review [ 13 ] . Most narrative review articles deal with a broad range of issues related to a given topic rather than addressing a particular issue in depth [ 9 ] . For example , a narrative review on diabetes ( such as that which might be found in a textbook chapter ) might include sections on the physiology and pathophysiology of carbohydrate , lipid , and protein metabolism ; the epidemiology of and prognosis associated with diabetes ; diagnostic and screening approaches ; and preventive , therapeutic , rehabilitative , and palliative interventions . Thus , narrative review s may be most useful for obtaining a broad perspective on a topic ; they are less often useful in furnishing quantitative answers to specific clinical questions . Narrative review s are appropriate for describing the history or development of a problem and its management . Narrative review s may better describe cutting-edge developments if research is scant or preliminary or if studies are very limited by flawed design or execution [ 13 ] . They may be particularly useful for discussing data in light of underlying theory and context . Narrative review s can draw analogies and can conceptually integrate two independent fields of research , such as The m and ate of Human Reproduction Up date involves several roles : ( i ) to provide a synthesis of evidence that can aid scientists and clinicians in their daily work ; ( ii ) to help reproductive specialists underst and concepts from related disciplines ; and ( iii ) to summarize current knowledge generated by basic science as the foundation of future scientific and clinical advancement . Given that review and synthesis are central to good scientific and clinical practice , and that a grasp of the current state of knowledge is a prerequisite to design ing new studies , it is pertinent to ask which review s are most likely to fulfil the needs of readers . A related question concerns whether systematic review s meet the needs of all review topics and all readers . Summarizing evidence or knowledge is a difficult problem in reproductive medicine , as in other branches of science and medical care ( Eddy et al. , 1992 ) . For each question there may be multiple studies that use different design s and inclusion criteria . For clinical questions , the interventions , outcomes and measures of effect may vary : the effect measures in treatment studies include odds ratios , relative risks and absolute differences . For scientific questions , the experimental species , models and design s may differ . Moreover , it is always uncertain whether all of the relevant evidence has been evaluated . Even when the search has been exhaustive , there are no simple guides on how to interpret conflicting results and whether to accept apparently outlying studies . The choices that the review er makes to address the variable conditions and uncertainties may be conservative , strict and exclusive , or liberal , open and inclusive . The decisions made by the review er may not be consistent throughout and these choices may or may not satisfy the reader who seeks out the review to address a clinical or research question . Faced with uncertainty and doubt , readers nonetheless must form an impression of the evidence and synthesize the state of knowledge in order to address the clinical or research question that stimulated their interest in the review . We argue that the reader is better served when the choices made in the review , regardless of whether they are strict or open , should be explicit , transparent , clearly stated and reproducible by interested readers . This list of objectives for review s is more easily satisfied by systematic review s , which use explicit methods to method ically search , critically appraise and synthesize the available literature on a specific issue . The question or issue need not be clinical : indeed , the concept evolved primarily in psychology studies ( Light and Pillemer , 1984 ) . The systematic review attempts to reduce review er bias through the use of objective , reproducible criteria to select relevant individual publications and assess their validity . A systematic review may include a meta- analysis or statistical summary of the individual study results : the aggregate of effects from several studies yields an average treatment effect that is more precise than the individual study results ( Schlesselman and Collins , 2003 ) . Thus , the systematic review involves explicit , transparent methods which are clearly stated , and reproducible by others . Whether a systematic review of r and omized controlled trials adheres to the guidelines can easily be evaluated by means of a widely used checklist ( the QUORUM statement ) ( Moher et al. , 1999 ) . The strengths of the systematic review include the narrow focus of the question , the comprehensive search for evidence , the criterion-based selection of relevant evidence , the rigorous appraisal of validity , the objective or quantitative summary , and the evidence -based inferences ( Cook et al. , 1997 ) . For some review topics , however , the strengths of the systematic review may turn into weaknesses . The primary problem is that the narrow focus and prescribed methods of the systematic review do not allow for comprehensive coverage . For example , the historical review is an irreplaceable means of tracing the development of a scientific principle or clinical concept , but the narrative thread could be lost in the strict rules of systematic review . As other examples , it would be burdensome to apply systematic methods to a survey on  aneuploidy and fertility in the aging female or to an assessment of mouse knockout models and polycystic ovarian phenotype . Such topics would require the wider scope of a traditional narrative review , in Human Reproduction Up date , Vol.11 , No.2 pp . 103–104 , 2005 doi:10.1093/humupd/dmh058 Advance Access publication December 23 ,
In comparison with the baseline , NNS consumption was not found to increase blood glucose level , and its concentration gradually declined over the course of observation following NNS consumption .
The glycemic impact of NNS consumption did not differ by type of NNS but to some extent varied by participants ’ age , body weight , and diabetic status .
Conclusions NNS consumption was not found to elevate blood glucose level .
Background / objectives Nonnutritive sweeteners ( NNSs ) are zero- or low-calorie alternatives to nutritive sweeteners , such as table sugars .
A systematic review and meta- analysis of r and omized controlled trials was conducted to quantitatively synthesize existing scientific evidence on the glycemic impact of NNSs .