Trial reportNutrients2022
Resistant Maltodextrin Consumption in a Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial Induces Specific Changes in Potentially Beneficial Gut Bacteria.
Trial report in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02733263 (Resistant Maltodextrin Supplementation and the Effect on Fecal Bifidobacteria, Bowel Function, Dietary Intake and Quality of Life), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Resistant Maltodextrin Supplementation and the Effect on Fecal Bifidobacteria, Bowel Function, Dietary Intake and Quality of Life
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- First metagenomic analysis of age-associated changes in the gut microbiome among healthy Saudi adults: SAMS pilot study.Frontiers in aging · 2026Article
- Addition of soluble fiber to standard purified diets is important for gut morphology in mice.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Assessing Gastrointestinal Tolerance in Healthy Adults: Reliability and Validity of a Weekly Questionnaire.Current developments in nutrition · 2023Article
- Emerging Dietary Bioactives in Health and Disease.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Dietary Fiber Intake and Gut Microbiota in Human Health.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: We have previously reported that the addition of resistant maltodextrin (RMD), a fermentable functional fiber, to the diet increases fecal weight as well as the amount of fecal bifidobacteria. Here, we report on the targeted analysis of changes in potentially beneficial gut bacteria associated with the intervention. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of adding 0, 15 and 25 g RMD to the diets of healthy free-living adults on potentially beneficial gut bacteria. Methods: We expanded on our previously reported microbiota analysis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled feeding study (NCT02733263) by performing additional qPCR analyses targeting fecal lactic acid bacteria (LAB), Akkermansia muciniphila, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Fusicatenibacter saccharivorans in samples from 49 participants. Results: RMD resulted in an approximately two-fold increase in fecal Fusicatenibacter saccharivorans (p = 0.024 for 15 g/day RMD and p = 0.017 for 25 g/day RMD). For Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, we obtained borderline evidence that showed increased amounts in participants that had low baseline levels of these bacteria (p < 0.1 for 25 g/day RMD). We did not detect any effects of RMD on LAB. Conclusions: RMD supplementation in healthy individuals increases Fusicatenibacter saccharivorans. Albeit to a lesser extent, RMD at the higher intake level may also increase Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in individuals with low baseline levels of those two species. Potential benefits associated with these microbiota changes remain to be established in studies with quantifiable health-related endpoints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.