Meta-analysis2021Open access

Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pagliai G, Dinu M, Madarena MP, Bonaccio M, Iacoviello L, Sofi F

The British journal of nutrition · 686 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death
Intake measured by
Not stated

Who paid for it

Funding
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2020-08-14 · Br J Nutr · vol. 125 · issue 3 · pp. 308–318
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Cited
1054 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 27.8× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
55 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
Medicine, Overweight, Prospective cohort study, Relative risk, Cohort study, Waist, Population, Obesity, Meta-analysis, Metabolic syndrome, Internal medicine, Cohort, Environmental health, Confidence interval
MeSH
humans, diet, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, health status, food handling

6 authors

From IT

  • Giuditta PagliaiAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi; University of Florence
  • Monica Gabriela Dinu · correspondingAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi; University of Florence
  • Maria Pia MadarenaUniversity of Florence
  • Marialaura BonaccioIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo
  • Licia IacovielloUniversity of Insubria; Istituto Neurologico Mediterraneo
  • Francesco SofiAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi; University of Florence

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that high consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) is associated with an increase in non-communicable diseases, overweight and obesity. The present study systematically reviewed all observational studies that investigated the association between UPF consumption and health status. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar was conducted, and reference lists of included articles were checked. Only cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies were included. At the end of the selection process, twenty-three studies (ten cross-sectional and thirteen prospective cohort studies) were included in the systematic review. As regards the cross-sectional studies, the highest UPF consumption was associated with a significant increase in the risk of overweight/obesity (+39 %), high waist circumference (+39 %), low HDL-cholesterol levels (+102 %) and the metabolic syndrome (+79 %), while no significant associations with hypertension, hyperglycaemia or hypertriacylglycerolaemia were observed. For prospective cohort studies evaluating a total population of 183 491 participants followed for a period ranging from 3·5 to 19 years, highest UPF consumption was found to be associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality in five studies (risk ratio (RR) 1·25, 95 % CI 1·14, 1·37; P < 0·00001), increased risk of CVD in three studies (RR 1·29, 95 % CI 1·12, 1·48; P = 0·0003), cerebrovascular disease in two studies (RR 1·34, 95 % CI 1·07, 1·68; P = 0·01) and depression in two studies (RR 1·20, 95 % CI 1·03, 1·40; P = 0·02). In conclusion, increased UPF consumption was associated, although in a limited number of studies, with a worse cardiometabolic risk profile and a higher risk of CVD, cerebrovascular disease, depression and all-cause mortality.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.