ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Evaluating the Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners on Pigs: A Systematic Review.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners on Pigs: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) have been investigated for their potential to improve feed palatability and growth performance in pigs, although their use in swine production remains limited. This systematic review evaluates the effects of NNS on pigs, drawing from 18 studies published between 1990 and 2024. Following the PRISMA guidelines and using the PICOS framework, a total of 448 papers were initially identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria for review. The results are mixed: some studies suggest that NNS like stevioside, sucralose, and neotame may improve performance and reduce diarrhea, while others show limited or no effects. The impact of NNS on gut microbiota is similarly inconsistent, with some sweeteners promoting beneficial bacterial growth, while others show minimal changes in microbial diversity. This review emphasizes the need for more research to clarify the effects of NNS in pigs, particularly the mechanisms behind their influence on growth and gut health. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine optimal dosages and assess the long-term impacts of NNS on pig immune function and overall health. The findings highlight the current gaps in knowledge and suggest that more evidence is needed to understand the role of NNS in swine nutrition.
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.