Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-SOD-107 standard review
Sucralose trials show no clear gut or blood-sugar effect
Effect of Sucralose Consumption on Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Overview
Wulandari DT et al.. Int J Mol Sci 2026 · PMID 42794802 · DOI 10.3390/ijms27188377
A 2026 meta-analysis of 10 small trials found no significant effect of sucralose on gut bacteria diversity, fasting glucose or insulin resistance.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Pool trials on sucralose and gut bacteria.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of randomised trials.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Ten small trials.
- What was actually found?
No significant changes in diversity or blood sugar.
- How large was the observed effect?
Shannon SMD -0.00; fasting glucose SMD -0.04.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Short-term sucralose use did not clearly disturb gut bacteria.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, short, imprecise trials.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits the claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot exclude long-term or individual effects.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Wulandari DT et al.
- Journal
- Int J Mol Sci
- Year
- 2026
- Identifier
- PMID 42794802 DOI 10.3390/ijms27188377
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Polish ministry and university funding; authors declare no conflicts (PubMed record)
2. Research question
Does sucralose alter gut microbiota, SCFA and metabolic parameters in healthy adults?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, May 2026); RoB 2; REML random effects
- Population
Healthy adults
- Country
International
- Period
Searched May 2026
- Sample size
10 RCTs (8-61 participants each); 7 in meta-analysis
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
RCTs of sucralose in healthy adults
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Sucralose
- Comparator
Control
- Endpoints
Alpha diversity; SCFA; fasting glucose; HOMA-IR
- Statistical methods
Standardised mean differences
5. Actual results
- Results
Shannon index SMD -0.00 (-1.16 to 1.15); fasting glucose SMD -0.04 (-0.63 to 0.56; I2 69.6%); HOMA-IR SMD -0.13 (-0.36 to 0.10); butyrate numerically lower, not significant.
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Short-term RCTs did not demonstrate significant effects of sucralose on microbiota or metabolic outcomes.
6. Strengths
- RCTs only
- Most recent synthesis (2026)
7. Weaknesses
- Small trials, wide CIs
- Short durations
- Google Scholar search may be unsystematic
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Imprecise pooled estimates.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Very wide CIs: absence of evidence of an effect, not evidence of absence.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Limits C-SOD-07 for sucralose: pooled short-term RCTs show no consistent microbiome or glucose effect.
11. Independent contrary findings
Suez 2022 (I-SOD-03) found impaired glycaemic responses with sucralose.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Weakens but does not exclude the hypothesis for sucralose.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | not replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | inconsistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Longer trials with inert comparators.
15. Linked fact checks
- Artificial sweeteners disturb the beneficial gut bacteria and thereby induce glucose intolerance in animals and humans. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim