Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37360305›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2023

Association between ultra-processed foods and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ying Lian, Gang-Pu Wang, Guo-Qiang Chen, Hua-Nan Chen, Guang-Yong Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Ultra-processed Foods and Gastrointestinal Cancer: Epidemiologic Evidence, Mechanistic Pathways, and Clinical Implications.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ying Lian *Department of Health Management and Engineering Laboratory for Health Management, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Jinan, China.
Gang-Pu Wang *Department of General Surgery, The Fourth People's Hospital of Jinan City, Jinan, China.
Guo-Qiang ChenDepartment of Health Management and Engineering Laboratory for Health Management, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Jinan, China.
Hua-Nan ChenDepartment of Health Management and Engineering Laboratory for Health Management, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Jinan, China.
Guang-Yong ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
Shandong First Medical University · CNThe Fourth People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing evidence that has shown the association of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) with cancer risk, the results remain inconclusive. We, therefore, conducted the meta-analysis to clarify the association by including recently published studies. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify all relevant studies from inception to January 2023. To pool data, fixed-effects or random-effects models were used where appropriate. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias tests were performed. Results: A total of 13 studies (4 cohort studies and 9 case-control studies) were included in the analysis, with a total of 625,738 participants. The highest UPFs consumption was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.10-1.38), colon cancer (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14-1.36), and breast cancer (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20) but not rectal cancer (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.97-1.43) and prostate cancer (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.12). In addition, the subgroup analyses showed that a positive association between UPFs consumption and colorectal cancer was observed among men (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.15-1.50), whereas no significant association was observed among women (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94-1.29). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggests that high UPFs consumption is associated with a significantly increased risk of certain site-specific cancers, especially the digestive tract and some hormone-related cancers. However, further rigorously designed prospective and experimental studies are needed to better understand causal pathways.

Indexed as

breast cancercolorectal cancermeta-analysissystematic reviewultra-processed foods (UPFs)

Identifiers

PMID37360305
PMCPMC10285062
OpenAlexW4380052272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.