SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Systematic review of metabolism and safety aspects of monosodium glutamate intake in infants and lactating mothers: a scientific and regulatory perspective.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is widely used as a flavor enhancer, and its safety has been extensively studied for decades, providing a robust evidence base. Scientific discourse has focused on its effects on neurodevelopment, metabolism, and specific populations, such as neonates, and these effects have been carefully evaluated. Regulatory agencies worldwide have periodically revisited the evidence base, emphasizing the need for updated, balanced assessments. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to August 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, preclinical investigations, and regulatory assessments. Two independent reviewers screened 3,800 records, with moderate inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.40), resolving all discrepancies through consensus. Data were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using standard tools (RoB 2, Newcastle-Ottawa, SYRCLE, and narrative appraisal). Results: Thirty-five studies and regulatory reports met inclusion criteria: 2 RCTs, observational studies ( Conclusion: Current evidence indicates that MSG is safe. Future research may further refine our understanding of developmental physiology and sensitive populations, building on the strong foundation of current evidence. A balanced interpretation of evidence is crucial for guiding public health communication and regulatory decision-making. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251239310.
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.