Association between higher consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of diabetes and its complications: A systematic review & updated meta-analysis
Souza M, Moura FS, Lima LCV, Amaral MJM
Metabolism: clinical and experimental · 8 citations
Review labels
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
- 2025-01-21 · Metabolism · vol. 165 · p. 156134
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 15 citations · more than 96% of similar papers · 4.2× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 52 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- Meta-analysis, Diabetes mellitus, Consumption (sociology), Association (psychology), Medicine, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Psychology, Endocrinology, Sociology, Social science
- MeSH
- humans, diabetes mellitus, diabetes complications, diet, risk factors, fast foods, food, processed
4 authors
From BR
- Matheus Henrique Gonçalves de Souza · correspondingUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
- Felipe S. MouraUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
- Luan C V LimaUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
- Marcio J M AmaralUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Abstract
Background & aims
Recent epidemiologic studies on the association between higher consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and risk of incident diabetes have reported conflicting results in populations worldwide. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of this association.
Methods
PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched (from 2009 to November 14, 2024) for prospective cohort studies reporting data on the association between UPF intake (defined by the NOVA classification) and the risk of incident diabetes or its complications in adults (>18 years). Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modelling to obtain pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and the GRADE approach was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
Results
We included 14 prospective cohort studies with a total of 692,508 participants. The highest UPF consumption was significantly associated with an increased risk of diabetes (n = 9 studies; HR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.14 to 1.34, I2 = 69 %) compared with the lowest UPF intake (very low certainty of evidence). Subgroup analysis showed that studies published in 2024 had a smaller effect size compared with earlier studies. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on study location, duration of follow-up, method and frequency of dietary intake assessment, and risk of bias. Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings. Each 10 % increase in total UPF consumption was associated with a 13 % (n = 4 studies; HR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.08 to 1.18, I2 = 37 %) increased risk of diabetes. Preliminary data from 4 cohort studies also suggest that high UPF consumption may be associated with complications in diabetic patients, including microvascular/cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and mortality.
Conclusion
UPF consumption is associated with a higher risk of incident diabetes and may contribute to its complications. Urgent public health efforts should prioritize the reduction of UPF consumption.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething 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 inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.