Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418082›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024

Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses.

Melissa M Lane, Elizabeth Gamage, Shutong Du, Deborah N Ashtree, Amelia J McGuinness, Sarah Gauci, Phillip Baker, Mark Lawrence, Casey M Rebholz, Bernard Srour and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 563 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
563citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–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

563 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pregnancy diet based on ancestral patterns increases growth in subcortical fetal brain regions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Protein Decoys, Alcohol, and Energy Intake: Testing a Mechanistic-Ecological Model.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review

503 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Melissa M LaneInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0002-5739-4560
Elizabeth GamageInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0009-0003-8567-4716
Shutong DuDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8072-1075
Deborah N AshtreeInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0003-3680-3860
Amelia J McGuinnessInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0003-3252-5824
Sarah GauciInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0002-1907-1066
Phillip BakerSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0802-2349
Mark LawrenceInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6899-3983
Casey M RebholzDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5442-8745
Bernard SrourUniversité Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Center of Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-93017 Bobigny, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-3380
Mathilde TouvierUniversité Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Center of Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-93017 Bobigny, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8322-8857
Felice N JackaInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0002-9825-0328
Adrienne O'NeilInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0002-4811-5830
Toby SegasbySchool of Biotechnology, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-1522-2194
Wolfgang MarxInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Food & Mood Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3220.ORCID 0000-0002-8556-8230

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the existing meta-analytic evidence of associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods, as defined by the Nova food classification system, and adverse health outcomes.

designSystematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manual searches of reference lists from 2009 to June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross sectional study designs. To evaluate the credibility of evidence, pre-specified evidence classification criteria were applied, graded as convincing ("class I"), highly suggestive ("class II"), suggestive ("class III"), weak ("class IV"), or no evidence ("class V"). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework, categorised as "high," "moderate," "low," or "very low" quality.

resultsThe search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response associations and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9 888 373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low). Of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (class V). Overall, using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as low quality, with 19 rated as very low quality and four rated as moderate quality.

conclusionsGreater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes. These findings provide a rationale to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of using population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. They also inform and provide support for urgent mechanistic research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023412732.

Indexed as

Food, ProcessedCardiovascular DiseasesHumansMeta-Analysis as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38418082
PMCPMC10899807

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.