Cited by 49Microbial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyGastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented Foods

Effect of a prebiotic mixture on intestinal comfort and general wellbeing in health

Open access
Goetze, Oliver, Fruehauf, Heiko, Pohl, Daniel, Giarrè, Marianna, Rochat, Florence, Ornstein, Kurt, Menne, Dieter, Fried, Michael +1 more·2008·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Specific carbohydrates, i.e. prebiotics such as fructo-oligosaccharide (FOS), are not digested in the small intestine but fermented in the colon. Besides beneficial health effects of an enhanced bifidobacteria population, intestinal gas production resulting from fermentation can induce abdominal symptoms. Partial replacement with slowly fermented acacia gum may attenuate side effects. The aim was to compare the effects of FOS with those of a prebiotic mixture (50 % FOS and 50 % acacia gum; BLEND) and a rapidly absorbed carbohydrate (maltodextrin) on general intestinal wellbeing, abdominal comfort and anorectal sensory function. Twenty volunteers (eight male and twelve female; age 20–37 years) completed this double-blind, randomised study with two cycles of a 2-week run-in phase (10 g maltodextrin) followed by 5 weeks of 10 g FOS or BLEND once daily, separated by a 4-week wash-out interval. Abdominal symptoms and general wellbeing were documented by telephone interview or Internet twice weekly. Rectal sensations were assessed by a visual analogue scale during a rectal barostat test after FOS and BLEND treatment. Both FOS and BLEND induced more side effects than maltodextrin. Belching was more pronounced under FOS compared with BLEND (P = 0·09 for females; P = 0·01 for males), and for self-reported general wellbeing strong sex differences were reported (P = 0·002). Urgency scores during rectal barostat were higher with FOS than BLEND (P = 0·01). Faced with a growing range of supplemented food products, consumers may benefit from prebiotic mixtures which cause fewer abdominal side effects. Sex differences must be taken in consideration when food supplements are used.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114508960918

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goetze, O., Fruehauf, H., Pohl, D., Giarrè, M., Rochat, F., Ornstein, K., Menne, D., Fried, M., & Thumshirn, M.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • Nestlé (Switzerland) (CH)
Corresponding author
Thumshirn, Miriam
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2008-11
Volume
100
Issue
5
Pages
1077-1085
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2096501458
Cited by
49
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
prebiotics, fructooligosaccharides, gum arabic, maltodextrin, intestinal gas, abdominal discomfort, belching, rectal sensation, Bifidobacterium, sex differences, dietary supplements, general well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Bifidobacterium, Colon, Dietary Carbohydrates, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fermentation, Flatulence, Gum Arabic, Health, Humans, Intestines, Male, Oligosaccharides, Polysaccharides, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Telemedicine, Cross-Over Studies, Dietary Supplements, Probiotics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review