Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750456›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024

The association between ultra-processed food and common pregnancy adverse outcomes: a dose-response systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sepide Talebi, Sanaz Mehrabani, Seyed Mojtaba Ghoreishy, Alexei Wong, Aliasghar Moghaddam, Peyman Rahimi Feyli, Parsa Amirian, Mahsa Zarpoosh, Mohammad Ali Hojjati Kermani, Sajjad Moradi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. FIGO committee opinion: Environmental drivers of obstetric health and early childhood development.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Sepide TalebiStudents' Scientific Research Center (SSRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sanaz MehrabaniFood Security Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Seyed Mojtaba GhoreishyDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alexei WongDepartment of Health and Human Performance, Marymount University, Arlington, VA, USA.
Aliasghar MoghaddamDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
Peyman Rahimi FeyliDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
Parsa AmirianGeneral Practitioner, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS), Kermanshah, Iran.
Mahsa ZarpooshGeneral Practitioner, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS), Kermanshah, Iran.
Mohammad Ali Hojjati KermaniClinical Tuberculosis and Epidemiology Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sajjad MoradiDepartment of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Research Center for Evidence-Based Health Management, Maragheh University of Medical Sciences, Maragheh, Iran. s.moradi@mrgums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGiven the increasing incidence of negative outcomes during pregnancy, our research team conducted a dose-response systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumption and common adverse pregnancy outcomes including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), preeclampsia (PE), preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), and small for gestational age (SGA) infants. UPFs are described as formulations of food substances often modified by chemical processes and then assembled into ready-to-consume hyper-palatable food and drink products using flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives. Examples include savory snacks, reconstituted meat products, frozen meals that have already been made, and soft drinks.

methodsA comprehensive search was performed using the Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. We pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.

resultsOur analysis (encompassing 54 studies with 552,686 individuals) revealed a significant association between UPFs intake and increased risks of GDM (RR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.27; I

conclusionIn summary, both prior to and during pregnancy, chronic and excessive intake of UPFs is associated with an increased risk of GDM and PE. However, further observational studies, particularly among diverse ethnic groups with precise UPFs consumption measurement tools, are imperative for a more comprehensive understanding.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalFast FoodsInfant, Small for Gestational AgePregnancy OutcomeFemaleFood HandlingFood, ProcessedHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornPre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPremature BirthGestational diabetes mellitusPreeclampsiaPregnancyPreterm birthUltra-processed foods

Identifiers

PMID38750456
PMCPMC11097443

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.