The relative efficacy of sensory modalities in driving insulin release, salivary secretion, appetite, and food intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 1Department of Radiotherapy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China
- 2Department of Nursing, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China
Abstract
Background: Food sensory stimulation may influence eating behavior, but the effects of different stimulation patterns have not been systematically compared.
Objective: To quantify the effects of food sensory stimulation on insulin release, salivary secretion, appetite, and food intake, and compare the efficacy of those sensory modalities.
Methods: We systematically searched five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Embase) for controlled human studies comparing visual, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, modified sham-feeding, or multisensory stimulation. Studies without an eligible comparator or relevant outcome were excluded. RCTs and non-RCTs were synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis when compatible numerical data were available and otherwise summarized qualitatively.
Results: We included 22 reports comprising 24 studies (6 RCTs, 18 non-RCTs) and 1008 adults (413 men, 595 women). Participants were predominantly healthy; two cohorts were women with obesity. The oldest cohort had a mean age of 72.4 years. RCTs showed increased salivary secretion (SMD = 1.04, 95% CI [0.64, 1.45], P < 0.0001) but no clear overall effect on food intake (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.88], P = 0.2742). Insulin release and appetite were each assessed in one RCT and synthesized narratively. Non-RCTs indicated increases in insulin release (SMD = 0.95, 95% CI [0.24, 1.66], P = 0.0088), salivary secretion (SMD = 0.78, 95% CI [0.38, 1.18], P = 0.0002), appetite (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI [0.29, 0.79], P < 0.0001), and food intake (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35], P = 0.0282).
Conclusion: RCT evidence suggests that food sensory stimulation increases salivary secretion but has uncertain effect on food intake. Non-RCT evidence indicates potential benefits across all four outcomes, although evidence for insulin release and appetite is limited. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these effects and clarify differences between sensory modalities.
Related
- Comparative efficacy of digital health intervention delivery modalities on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Comparative efficacy of different exercise modalities on renal function and glycemic control in patients with non-dialysis diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Salivary glands auto-segmentation in head and neck radiotherapy: imaging modalities, models, and clinical relevance
- GZMK⁺CD8⁺ T Cells Induce Acinar Cell Senescence and Salivary Secretion Impairment in Sjögren's Syndrome via Mitochondrial Dysfunction and TMEM16A Chloride Channel Disruption.
- Relative efficacy of different single and combined conservative interventions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{niu2026relative,
title = {{The relative efficacy of sensory modalities in driving insulin release, salivary secretion, appetite, and food intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
author = {Chunyan Niu and Jianzheng Cai and Zhina Gong and Yinuo Dai and Weixia Yu and Jingjing Chen and Haifang Wang and Yingying Zhang},
journal = {The journal of nutrition, health \& aging},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.jnha.2026.101011},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13722075},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The relative efficacy of sensory modalities in driving insulin release, salivary secretion, appetite, and food intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Chunyan Niu
AU - Jianzheng Cai
AU - Zhina Gong
AU - Yinuo Dai
AU - Weixia Yu
AU - Jingjing Chen
AU - Haifang Wang
AU - Yingying Zhang
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - The journal of nutrition, health & aging
DO - 10.1016/j.jnha.2026.101011
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13722075
AB - Background: Food sensory stimulation may influence eating behavior, but the effects of different stimulation patterns have not been systematically compared. Objective: To quantify the effects of food sensory stimulation on insulin release, salivary secretion, appetite, and food intake, and compare the efficacy of those sensory modalities. Methods: We systematically searched five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Embase) for controlled human studies comparing visual, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, modified sham-feeding, or multisensory stimulation. Studies without an eligible comparator or relevant outcome were excluded. RCTs and non-RCTs were synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis when compatible numerical data were available and otherwise summarized qualitatively. Results: We included 22 reports comprising 24 studies (6 RCTs, 18 non-RCTs) and 1008 adults (413 men, 595 women). Participants were predominantly healthy; two cohorts were women with obesity. The oldest cohort had a mean age of 72.4 years. RCTs showed increased salivary secretion (SMD = 1.04, 95% CI [0.64, 1.45], P < 0.0001) but no clear overall effect on food intake (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.88], P = 0.2742). Insulin release and appetite were each assessed in one RCT and synthesized narratively. Non-RCTs indicated increases in insulin release (SMD = 0.95, 95% CI [0.24, 1.66], P = 0.0088), salivary secretion (SMD = 0.78, 95% CI [0.38, 1.18], P = 0.0002), appetite (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI [0.29, 0.79], P < 0.0001), and food intake (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35], P = 0.0282). Conclusion: RCT evidence suggests that food sensory stimulation increases salivary secretion but has uncertain effect on food intake. Non-RCT evidence indicates potential benefits across all four outcomes, although evidence for insulin release and appetite is limited. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these effects and clarify differences between sensory modalities.
SN - 1760-4788
SN - 1279-7707
ER -