Characteristics of included evidence assessment units (n=51*)
| n (%) | |
| Author’s conclusion | |
| Decrease BW/more beneficial | 11 (22) |
| Neutral (no directional effect or association) | 7 (14) |
| Increase BW/less beneficial | 7 (14) |
| No conclusion directly relevant to the LES–BW relationship | 0 |
| Evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion | 26 (51) |
| Unable to draw a conclusion from the paper | 0 |
| Statistical significance† | |
| Decrease BW/more beneficial | 2 (4) |
| Neutral (no directional effect or association) | 3 (6) |
| Increase BW/less beneficial | 3 (6) |
| No conclusion directly relevant to the LES–BW relationship | 0 |
| Evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion | 0 |
| Unable to draw a conclusion from the paper | 2 (4) |
| Missing data | 1 (2) |
| Type | |
| Narrative review | 26 (51) |
| Systematic review with meta-analysis | 11 (22) |
| Systematic review without meta-analysis | 14 (27) |
| Population | |
| Adults | 6 (12) |
| Children | 14 (27) |
| Both | 31 (61) |
| Funding source | |
| Non-profit organisation‡ | 25 (49) |
| For profit organisation | 0 |
| Both profit and non-profit | 0 |
| Not stated/stated as no funding received | 26 (51) |
| Affiliation of the corresponding author | |
| University | 44 (86) |
| Government | 4 (8) |
| Non-profit organisation | 1 (2) |
| Industry | 2 (4) |
| Other | 0 |
| Affiliation of the first author | |
| University | 46 (90) |
| Government | 2 (4) |
| Non-profit organisation | 1 (2) |
| Industry | 2 (4) |
| Other | 0 |
| Median (IQR) | |
| Number of authors | 3 (2–6) |
| Journal impact factor, current (2018) | 4.17 (3.57–5.78) |
| Journal impact factor, last 5 years | 4.81 (3.43–7.45) |
| Number of relevant cited articles | 9 (6–13) |
| Number of review authors publications in the section concerning BW | 0 (0–0) |
*From a total number of 33 included reviews. Where a review publication contained independent analyses and conclusions for randomised controlled trials and observational evidence, or adults and children, those were treated as separate evidence assessment units. This is the case for 18 papers, resulting in 51 evidence assessment units from the 33 reviews.
†From evidence assessment units with meta-analysis (n=11).
‡Of the 25 EAUs with support from non-profit sources, 4 were supported by primarily industry-funded non-profit organisations and the rest by grants primarily from government, independent foundations and universities.
BW, body weight; IQR, Interquartile range; LES, low-energy sweeteners; n, sample size.