Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-SOD-02 standard review

Sparkling water for indigestion

Effects of carbonated water on functional dyspepsia and constipation.

Overview

Cuomo R et al.. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002 · PMID 12352219 · DOI 10.1097/00042737-200209000-00010

In a small trial, sparkling water improved indigestion and constipation compared with tap water.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Effect of carbonated water in functional dyspepsia and constipation.

How was the study done?

Double-blind randomized trial, ~15 days.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

21 (10 carbonated, 11 tap water); Patients with dyspepsia and secondary constipation

What was actually found?

Dyspepsia score 7.9 -> 5.4 with carbonated water (unchanged with tap water); constipation score 16.0 -> 12.1; satiety reduced; gallbladder emptying improved.

How large was the observed effect?

Dyspepsia score 7.9 -> 5.4

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Plain sparkling water is not shown to harm digestion.

What are the study's limitations?

Very small; Short; Within-group analyses

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts C-SOD-12, C-SOD-14.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

High.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

General benefit.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Cuomo R et al.
Journal
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
Year
2002
Identifier
PMID 12352219 DOI 10.1097/00042737-200209000-00010
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Not stated

2. Research question

Effect of carbonated water in functional dyspepsia and constipation.

3. Study design and population

Study design
Randomised controlled trial – Double-blind randomized trial, ~15 days.
Population

Patients with dyspepsia and secondary constipation

Country

Italy (authors)

Period

not stated in abstract

Sample size

21 (10 carbonated, 11 tap water)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

not stated in abstract

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Carbonated water

Comparator

Tap water

Endpoints

Dyspepsia and constipation scores, satiety, gastric/gallbladder emptying, colonic transit

Statistical methods

Before-after within groups

5. Actual results

Results

Dyspepsia score 7.9 -> 5.4 with carbonated water (unchanged with tap water); constipation score 16.0 -> 12.1; satiety reduced; gallbladder emptying improved.

Absolute risks

not applicable

Authors' conclusion

Carbonated water decreases satiety and improves dyspepsia, constipation and gallbladder emptying in these patients.

6. Strengths

  • Double-blind randomized

7. Weaknesses

  • Very small
  • Short
  • Within-group analyses

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
RoB 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Small; analysis approach.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Low precision.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Contradicts C-SOD-12, C-SOD-14.

11. Independent contrary findings

None.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

High.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Small trial; plausible benefit.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitylow
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultslow
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitynot replicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceunknown
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Replication.

15. Linked fact checks