Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38245358›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2024

Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.

Marilena Vitale, Giuseppina Costabile, Roberta Testa, Giovanna D'Abbronzo, Immacolata Cristina Nettore, Paolo Emidio Macchia, Rosalba Giacco

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
25.8field-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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marilena VitaleDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Federico II University of Naples, Italy. Electronic address: marilena.vitale@unina.it.
Giuseppina CostabileDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Federico II University of Naples, Italy.
Roberta TestaDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Federico II University of Naples, Italy.
Giovanna D'AbbronzoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Federico II University of Naples, Italy.
Immacolata Cristina NettoreDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Italy.
Paolo Emidio MacchiaDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Italy.
Rosalba GiaccoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Federico II University of Naples, Italy; Institute of Food Sciences, National Research Council, Avellino, Italy.
Federico II University Hospital · ITInstitute of Food Science · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence of associations between ultra-processed foods (UPF) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease is emerging, but it is unclear how much this is influenced by the methodology used to assess the UPF intake or by the level of consumption. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate 1) the association between UPF consumption and risk of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity, using prospective cohort studies; 2) the differential associations depending on the methodology used to assess UPF intake and the level of UPF consumption and 3) the quality of evidence using the NutriGrade scoring system. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus through 1 April, 2023, on studies conducted in humans providing data for the highest compared with the lowest UPF consumption categories. Summary relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. Out of 4522 articles retrieved from the literature search, 25 reports met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, 7 for diabetes, 5 for hypertension, 3 for dyslipidemia, and 13 for obesity. A consistently positive association between high UPF intake and increased risk of developing diabetes (37%), hypertension (32%), hypertriglyceridemia (47%), low HDL cholesterol concentration (43%), and obesity (32%) was observed, even if the quality of evidence was not satisfying. However, these risks varied significantly depending on the methodology used to assess UPF consumption, with a difference of more than 50% between the methods. Based on the level of intake, we did not observe significant differences in the results. These findings show that UPF consumption is associated with higher risk of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity, but the level of risk consistently changes depending on the methodology used to assess UPF intake. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting and extrapolating the results.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDyslipidemiasHypertensionDietFood, ProcessedHumansObesityProspective Studiesdiabetesdyslipidemiahumanhypertensionobesityultra-processed foods

Identifiers

PMID38245358
PMCPMC10831891
OpenAlexW4389866432

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.