Meta-analysis2024Open access

Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Vitale M, Costabile G, Testa R, D'Abbronzo G, Nettore IC, Macchia PE, Giacco R

Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 101 citations

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
Independent funding
Government
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
Government
Ministero dell'Istruzione e del Merito
Government
Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Universita e della Ricerca
Grants
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (ALIFUN ARS01_00783)

Based on 3 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2023-12-18 · Adv Nutr · vol. 15 · issue 1 · p. 100121
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Cited
131 citations · more than 99% of similar papers · 8.3× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
52 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Keywords
Medicine, Meta-analysis, Dyslipidemia, Prospective cohort study, Environmental health, Confidence interval, MEDLINE, Relative risk, Obesity, Cohort study, Diabetes mellitus, Systematic review, Internal medicine, Endocrinology
MeSH
humans, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, diet, prospective studies, dyslipidemias, food, processed

7 authors

From IT

  • Marilena Vitale · correspondingFederico II University Hospital
  • Giuseppina Costabile
  • Roberta Testa
  • Giovanna D’Abbronzo
  • Immacolata Cristina Nettore
  • Paolo Emidio Macchia

Abstract

Evidence of associations between ultra-processed foods (UPF) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease is emerging, but it is unclear how much this is influenced by the methodology used to assess the UPF intake or by the level of consumption. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate 1) the association between UPF consumption and risk of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity, using prospective cohort studies; 2) the differential associations depending on the methodology used to assess UPF intake and the level of UPF consumption and 3) the quality of evidence using the NutriGrade scoring system. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus through 1 April, 2023, on studies conducted in humans providing data for the highest compared with the lowest UPF consumption categories. Summary relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. Out of 4522 articles retrieved from the literature search, 25 reports met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, 7 for diabetes, 5 for hypertension, 3 for dyslipidemia, and 13 for obesity. A consistently positive association between high UPF intake and increased risk of developing diabetes (37%), hypertension (32%), hypertriglyceridemia (47%), low HDL cholesterol concentration (43%), and obesity (32%) was observed, even if the quality of evidence was not satisfying. However, these risks varied significantly depending on the methodology used to assess UPF consumption, with a difference of more than 50% between the methods. Based on the level of intake, we did not observe significant differences in the results. These findings show that UPF consumption is associated with higher risk of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity, but the level of risk consistently changes depending on the methodology used to assess UPF intake. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting and extrapolating the results.

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.