ArticleBMJ public health2026
Ultra-processed food and risk of gastric cancer: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption has increased globally and has been linked to several non-communicable diseases including cancer. However, evidence regarding its association with gastric cancer (GC) remains limited and inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the association between UPF consumption and GC risk. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024504965). PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from January 1991 to April 2024, with an updated search in February 2025. Eligible studies were observational studies assessing the association between UPF consumption, specific UPF categories or UPF-related dietary patterns and GC risk. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Due to heterogeneity in exposure definitions, outcome classification and effect estimates, findings were synthesised narratively. Results: Seventeen studies were included, comprising 14 case-control studies and 3 cohort studies, with a total of 276825 participants. Eight studies reported positive associations between UPF consumption and GC risk, three reported no association and six showed mixed findings depending on UPF category, population subgroup or cancer subtype. Processed meats, fried or fast foods, sugary beverages, highly processed dairy products and Western-style dietary patterns were more frequently associated with increased GC risk. However, findings varied across studies due to differences in dietary assessment methods, UPF classification, exposure categories and confounder adjustment. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests a potential association between UPF consumption and GC risk, particularly for processed meats, fried foods and UPF-rich dietary patterns. However, the evidence remains inconclusive because of methodological heterogeneity and reliance on observational studies. Further prospective studies using standardised UPF classifications and validated dietary assessment tools are needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024504965.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.