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

Original publication

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

14. Open questions

Longer trials with inert comparators.

15. Linked fact checks