Cargando…

Low-calorie sweeteners and health outcomes: an evaluation of rapid versus traditional evidence mapping

OBJECTIVE: Scientific evidence related to environmental exposures continues to mount. Tools such as evidence mapping support decision making, but can be resource- and time-intensive. We explored “rapid evidence mapping” to efficiently map scientific evidence using rigorous and transparent methodolog...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lam, Juleen, Elmore, Rebecca, Howard, Brian, Shah, Ruchir R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8858516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35183236
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05926-3
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Scientific evidence related to environmental exposures continues to mount. Tools such as evidence mapping support decision making, but can be resource- and time-intensive. We explored “rapid evidence mapping” to efficiently map scientific evidence using rigorous and transparent methodologies. We undertook a proof-of-concept case study on the topic of low-calorie sweeteners. Our intent was to conduct a traditional evidence map based on the same evidence base from a prior rapid evidence map case study to compare approaches, findings, and conclusions. We searched the literature, screened full text of studies, manually tagged and categorized articles, and created visualizations to map the evidence. RESULTS: We conducted full-text screening of studies from the prior rapid evidence map and identified 255 relevant studies. Our findings corroborated those of the rapid evidence map, identifying most studies as short-term conducted in healthy individuals studying outcomes of appetite, energy sensing and body weight. We identified gaps in research areas related to outcomes of appetite and dietary intake, particularly in study populations with diabetes. Our findings illustrate the promise of rapid evidence mapping as a rigorous approach that can summarize scientific evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and identify areas for a future systematic review in a time-efficient manner. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-022-05926-3.