Table 1 Characterized of included studies
From: Effects of weight change on taste function; a systematic review
Author (year) | Study design | Population | Age | Method of Taste assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Jilani (2022) [23] | Cross-sectional | 1938 children | 7–11 | Taste threshold: 5 watery solutions prepared with distilled water, with ascending concentrations of sucrose (8.8–46.7 mmol/l, sweet), sodium chloride (3.4–27.4 mmol/l, salty), monosodium glutamate (0.6–9.5 mmol/l, umami) or caffeine (0.26–1.3 mmol/l, bitter)/ using the paired comparison staircase method |
Costanzo (2021) [24] | Cross-sectional | 36 men and women | 18–55 | Taste threshold: twelve concentrations of oligofructose solutions determined using a validated ascending forced choice triangle methodology |
Nishihara (2019) [17] | Intervention Parallel | Women: 27 obesity, overweight/ 24 normal weight | 21–64 | Taste threshold: Two-alternative, forced choice staircase procedure. Pairs of solutions, one of which was sucrose solution and the other deionized water. The concentration for the sucrose solution began at 1 × 10–4 M. to choose the one they thought contained the sweet taste and continued until the choice were correct based on especial criteria Taste preference: forced-choice, paired-comparison tracking technique (differed in the concentration of sucrose and ask to choose one preferred) |
Vignini (2019) [25] | Case–control | 30 normal-weight /19 overweight/22 obesity |  > 32 | Taste sensitivity: Filter paper strips / four different concentrations / self- assessment according to a multiple-choice question. Sucrose (.05- 0.4)/ sodium chloride (0.016- 0.25), citric acid (0.05- 0.3)/ quinine hydrochloride (0.0004- 0.006) |
Mameli (2019) [26] | Case–control | children:34Obese /33 normal weight | 6–14 | Taste sensitivity: ‘Taste Strips’ method. Total number of 18 paper strips were used/ four different concentrations for each taste qualities (sweet, sour, salty and bitter) and two blank strips/self- assessment according to a multiple-choice question |
Uygun (2019) [18] | Case–control | 52obese/15 normal weight women | 18–55 | Taste threshold: sucrose concentrations (1.25 * 103 to 6.4 * 101 M)/ scale from 1 to 4 |
Proserpio (2018) [27] | Case–control | 45obese/40 normal weight | 18- 65 | Taste perception: filter papers (Whatman) were soaked in a saturated aqueous PROP (6-n-propyl-2-thiouracil) / Comparing the average perceived bitterness of PROP papers with those of PROP solutions, PROP paper falls between the perceived bitterness of 0.001 and 0.0032 M PROP |
Noel (2017) [28] | Cohort | 93 | young adults | Taste intensity: Three concentrations/ gLMS scale Sucrose (27.0, 81.0, and 243.0Â mmol/L) / sodium chloride (33.3, 100.0, and 300.0Â mmol/L)/ citric acid concentrations (1.0, 3.0, and 9.0Â mmol/L)/ quinine concentrations (0.056, 0.168, and 0.498Â mmol/L.) |
Hardikar (2017) [29] | Case–control | 23 obese (OB; BMI > 30), and 31 lean | 18–35 | Taste threshold: Using different concentrations/ adaptive Bayesian staircase procedure (QUEST) were continued until correct answer (sucrose, NaCl, citric acid, quinine) |
Fernandez-Garcia (2017) [22] | Case–control | 17 Low weight / 77 normal weight / 12 overweight/ 28 obesity/ 45 morbid obesity | 18–65 | Taste sensitivity: Taste strips/ The strips were placed on the left and right sides of the anterior third of the extended tongue/ Using different concentrations. 0.4- 0.05 g/ml sucrose/ 0.3- 0.05 g/ ml citric acid/ 0.25- 0.016 g/ml sodium chloride/ 0.006- 0.0004 g/ml quinine hydrochloride |
Burgess (2016) [19] | Intervention (Low carbohydrate /low fat diet) | Women: 69 obese | 44.2 | Taste threshold: Strawberry milk varying in sucrose (0%, 15% and 30% wt/vol) / visual analogue scale Taste preference: salad dressing fat (10%, 30%, 50% wt/vol) / visual analogue scale |
Newman (2016) [13] | Intervention | 53 Overweight and obese | 18–75 | Taste thresholds: using triangle tests with ascending forced choice Taste preference: different foods including cream cheese, vanilla yogurt, chocolate mousse. / 9-point hedonic scale |
Sauer (2016) [30] | Intervention | 60 Obese/27 normal weight | 9–17 | Taste perception: Taste strip/ 4 different concentrations which have been conducted by filter paper / self- assessment according to a multiple-choice question 0.4—0.05 g/mL sucrose/ 0.3- 0.05 g/mL citric acid/ 0.25–0.016 g/mL sodium chloride/ 0.006–0.0004 g/mL quinine-hydrochloride Subjective taste preferences: asking if participants had a preferred taste |
Proserpio (2016) [31] | Case–control | 51 obese/ 52 normal weight | 40.17 ± 10.79 | Taste sensitivity: Seven concentrations of Sucrose, caffeine, sodium chloride, citric acid, and oleic acid were prepared in mineral water Sucrose (0.16- 40) / Sodium chloride (0.06 – 4)/ Caffeine (0.003 – 2) / Citric acid (0.33 – 50) / Oleic acid (0.02- 30) Taste thresholds: 3-AFC method |
Ferna´ndez-Aranda (2016) [32] | Case–control | Women: 59 obese /36 normal weight | 37.5 | Taste sensitivity: Taste strips/ The strips were placed on the left and right sides of the anterior third of the extended tongue. Using different concentrations. 0.4- 0.05 g/ml sucrose/ 0.3- 0.05 g/ ml citric acid/ 0.25- 0.016 g/ml sodium chloride/ 0.006- 0.0004 g/ml quinine hydrochloride |
Park (2015) [33] | Case–control | 23 normal weight/ 18 overweight | 20–29 | Taste threshold: Electrogustometry (EGM) method were measured on both sides of the anterior and posterior tongue bases / 22 different thresholds, ranging from 3 uA (–8 dB) to 400 uA (34 dB), in a manner similar to pure-tone audiometry. /10 different concentrations of sodium chloride (0.016–0.9), sucrose (0.05–0.2), citric acid (0.05- 0.6), quinine hydrochloride (0.00001- 0.03) was administered |
Skrandies (2015) [34] | Case–control | 11 underweight/ 30 normal weight/ 18 overweight /7 obese | 20–65 | Tats threshold: Taste strip/ 4 different concentrations which have been conducted by filter paper / visual analogue scale |
Bertoli (2014) [35] | Intervention | 66 overweight/obese |  > 65 | Taste threshold: Three-alternative-forced-choice method. Five concentrations of sucrose, caffeine, sodium chloride and citric acid / 5 triads of samples marked with three-digit numbers |
Ettinger (2012) [21] | Case–control | women:50 normal/ 21 overweight | 18—49 | Taste thresholds: Six concentrations of sucrose solutions (0.2%,—1.2% w/v) using the ascending forced-choice trial method |
Overberg (2012) [12] | Case–control | 99 obese/ 94 normal weight | 6–18 | Taste sensitivity: Taste strips made from filter paper were impregnated with four different concentrations (sweet: 0.4- 0.05 g/ml sucrose; sour: 0.3- 0.05 g/ml citric acid; salty: 0.25–0.016 g/ml Sodium Chloride; umami: 0.25- 0.016 g/ml monosodium glutamate; bitter: 0.006- 0.0004 g/ml quinine-hydrochloride) plus two blank strips / 5-point rating scale |
Sartor (2011) [36] | Case–control | Normal weight 22/ overweight, obese 11 | 22.8 ± 2.5 | Taste sensitivity: Eleven concentrations of sucrose (0, 0.5- 2.75 log[sucrose] mol/L) and seven concentrations of sodium chloride (1- 2.5 log [NaCl] mol/L)/ gLMS of intensity (150 mm) |
Umabiki (2010) [20] | Intervention | Women: 20 overweight or obese | 55 | Taste threshold: 10 different concentrations (0.0098 – 50,000%) by forced-choice staircase method |
Matsushit (2009) [37] | Cohort | 29,103 | middle-aged | Taste preference: Kotteri is a word that all Japanese would know, indexing a taste as common as sweet or sour, and described as a rich and heavy taste in Japanese dictionary. / self- assessment according to a multiple-choice question |
Pasquet (2007) [38] | Case–control | 39 obese/ 48 non-obese | 11.5–18 | Taste threshold: sucrose (2.0 to 1000 mM), fructose (2.0 to 1000 mM), citric acid (0.40 to 25 mM) and quinine hydrochloride (0.4400 mM), whereas the solutions of sodium chloride (1.77 to 1000 mM) and PROP (15 solutions: 0.0013.2 mM)/ visual analogue scale |
Simchen (2006) [39] | Cross-sectional | 311 men and women |  < 65  > 65 | Taste sensitivity: Four different concentrations of sodium chloride (3.2- 100 mmol/l), sucrose (0.0032,—0.1 mol/l), citric acid (0.63- 5 mmol/l) and quinine hydrochloride (3.8- 40 mmol/l)/ 0–100 scores by the FIZZ Software |
Salbe (2004) [40] | Cohort | 123 |  > 18 | Hedonic response: Solutions of nonfat milk (0.1% fat), whole milk (3.5% fat), half and half (11.3% fat), and cream (37.5% fat) containing 0%, 5%, 10%, or 20% sugar by weight/ 100-mm visual analogue scale |