4.4 Article

The use of a wireless motility device (SmartPill®) for the measurement of gastrointestinal transit time after a dietary fibre intervention

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 105, 期 9, 页码 1337-1342

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114510004988

关键词

Dietary fibre; Wheat bran; Colonic transit time; Wireless motility device

资金

  1. General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN
  2. Tate & Lyle Health & Nutrition Sciences, Decatur, IL, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Historically, measurement of gastrointestinal transit time has required collection and X-raying of faecal samples for up to 7 d after swallowing radio-opaque markers; a tedious, labour-intensive technique for both subjects and investigators. Recently, a wireless motility capsule (SmartPill (R)), which uses gut pH, pressure and temperature to measure transit time, has been developed. This device, however, has not been validated with dietary interventions. Therefore, we conducted a controlled cross-over trial to determine whether the device could detect a significant difference in transit time after ten healthy subjects (five men and five women) consumed 9 g of wheat bran (WB) or an equal volume, low-fibre control for 3 d. A paired t test was used to determine differences in transit times. Colonic transit time decreased by 10.8 (SD 6.6) h (P-0.006) on the WB treatment. Whole-gut transit time also decreased by 8.9 (SD 5.4) h (P-0.02) after the consumption of WB. Gastric emptying time and small-bowel transit time did not differ between treatments. Despite encouraging results, the present study had several limitations including short duration, lack of randomisation and unusable data due to delayed gastric emptying of the capsule. With minimal participant burden, the SmartPill technology appears to be a potentially useful tool for assessing transit time after a dietary intervention. This technology could be considered for digestive studies with novel fibres and other ingredients that are promoted for gut health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据