Trial reportMedicine2026
Evaluation of gastric volume and pH changes in gastroscopy patients using chewing gum and candy: A prospective randomized double-blind study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundWhether chewing gum or candy consumption during preoperative fasting affects aspiration risk remains debated. This study investigated the effects of these products on gastric volume and pH, and evaluated procedure difficulty, satisfaction, and fasting-related symptoms.
methodsThis randomized, double-blind study enrolled 405 patients scheduled for elective gastroscopy, equally allocated to control, chewing gum, and candy groups. All groups adhered to standard fasting protocols; the chewing gum and candy groups additionally consumed the assigned products within 2 hours of sedation induction. Gastric contents were aspirated and analyzed for volume and pH. Fasting-related symptoms and satisfaction were assessed prior to discharge using a 3-point Likert scale.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable across groups. Fasting duration was significantly shorter in the chewing gum group (P = .030). Gastric volume was significantly higher in both intervention groups than in the control group (P < .001); however, all values remained below the aspiration threshold of 0.5 mL/kg with small effect sizes. No significant between-group differences in gastric pH were observed (P = .697). Procedure difficulty, satisfaction, and complication rates did not differ across groups. Chewing gum reduced thirst while increasing hunger, whereas candy reduced hunger while increasing thirst (all P < .001).
conclusionPreoperative chewing gum or candy consumption produced a statistically significant but clinically negligible increase in gastric volume without affecting gastric pH. The distinct effects on fasting-related symptoms suggest that symptom-based product selection may improve patient comfort. These findings indicate that preoperative chewing gum or candy intake does not meaningfully increase the risk of aspiration before endoscopic procedures.
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.