Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38294671›Full record

ReviewCurrent nutrition reports2024

Ultra-processed Food and Obesity: What Is the Evidence?

Samuel J Dicken, Rachel L Batterham

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current nutrition reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
46.1field-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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. DietaryCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

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

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samuel J DickenCentre for Obesity Research, Department of Medicine, University College London (UCL), London, WC1E 6JF, UK.
Rachel L BatterhamCentre for Obesity Research, Department of Medicine, University College London (UCL), London, WC1E 6JF, UK. r.batterham@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N013867/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewObesity is a growing global healthcare concern. A proposed driver is the recent increase in ultra-processed food (UPF) intake. However, disagreement surrounds the concept of UPF, the strength of evidence, and suggested mechanisms. Therefore, this review aimed to critically appraise the evidence on UPF and obesity. RECENT

findingsObservational studies demonstrate positive associations between UPF intake, weight gain, and overweight/obesity, more clearly in adults than children/adolescents. This is supported by high-quality clinical data. Several mechanisms are proposed, but current understanding is inconclusive. Greater UPF consumption has been a key driver of obesity. There is a need to change the obesogenic environment to support individuals to reduce their UPF intake. The UPF concept is a novel approach that is not explained with existing nutrient- and food-based frameworks. Critical analysis of methodologies provides confidence, but future observational and experimental research outputs with greater methodological rigor will strengthen findings, which are outlined.

Indexed as

Food, ProcessedObesityAdolescentAdultChildFoodHumansOverweightWeight GainDietDietary guidelinesNOVAObesityPublic healthUltra-processed food

Identifiers

PMID38294671
PMCPMC10924027
OpenAlexW4391387837

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.