Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42540019›Full record

ReviewBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2026

Not all ultra-processed foods are created equal: a review.

Hana Kahleova, Joseph Himmelfarb, Neal D Barnard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors.

Hana KahleovaPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-3993
Joseph HimmelfarbPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Neal D BarnardPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Nova system was proposed as a means of categorising food products according to the degree and methods of processing. The term 'ultra-processed' was used to indicate foods with the most extensive processing. When applied to research cohorts, foods in this category have shown widely heterogeneous associations with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions, with some foods associated with increased risk and others associated with significantly reduced risk, raising important considerations for public policy. The purpose of this review is to summarise the findings of studies analysing the associations of ultra-processed foods with the risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Out of 309 records found on PubMed, 14 publications that differentiated between ultra-processed food groups were included in the review. Positive associations between ultra-processed food consumption and adverse health outcomes have been found for processed meats, sweetened beverages (both sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened), and fats, spreads and sauces. Other ultra-processed foods have been associated with lower risk of these conditions, mainly breads, biscuits and breakfast cereals, and whole grains. Randomised clinical trials show that replacing animal products with plant-based foods, even when processed, leads to health benefits. These studies suggest that the Nova system may be improved by differentiating between animal and plant foods.

Indexed as

Diabetes mellitusMetabolic syndromeNutritional treatment

Identifiers

PMID42540019
PMCPMC13425132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.