Premium
Sugars and health: applying evidence mapping techniques to assess the evidence (630.10)
Author(s) -
Berger Samantha,
Wang Deena,
Sackey Joachim,
Brown Carrie,
Chung Mei
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.28.1_supplement.630.10
Subject(s) - medicine , glycemic , medline , anthropometry , psychological intervention , environmental health , cohort study , cohort , diabetes mellitus , biology , biochemistry , psychiatry , endocrinology
Objective: Evidence mapping (EM) is a novel, systematic method for describing the volume and characteristics of research in a broad field. We applied EM to evaluate the empirical evidence of the state of science on the relationships between sugars and cardiometabolic health‐related outcomes. Methods: A pre‐defined, systematic study selection process was applied to a broad Medline search (through April 2013) of the existing literature on sugars. Studies reporting cardiometabolic risk factors and/or related clinical outcomes were selected for this study. Data from the studies were extracted and deposited to a data repository. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Our EM included 207 studies (196 intervention and 11 cohort studies). Of the intervention studies, the most common sugar interventions were sucrose (40%) and fructose (31%), and the top two controls were glucose (14%) and starch (13%). The most studied outcomes were glycemic profiles (27%), plasma lipids (11%), and anthropometrics (7%). Studies were generally short in duration (median 26 days, ranging from <1 to 730 days). 89% were in adults and 6% were in children. The 11 cohort studies investigated 3 different sugar exposures and 9 different hard clinical outcomes. Conclusions: An extensive but heterogeneous body of evidence exists in this broad field of research. EM is a useful method for identifying “hot” research areas and research gaps. Evidence‐based methods are effective to direct future research. Grant Funding Source : This study is in part supported by International Life Science Institute North America