SynthesisNutrition reviews2025
Health effects of drinking 100% juice: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The oral und systemic health risks of sugar consumption: an umbrella review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled it
- Health effects of drinking 100% juice: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.Nutrition reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of Serbian adults' diet through cluster analysis approach - findings from the national health interview survey.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Serum uric acid and its metabolism-a vital factor in the inflammatory transformation of cancer.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Effects ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Plant-Based Diet Quality and Gastric Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study in High-Risk Regions of Fujian Province, China.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- A dietary modelling approach to examine the impact on vitamin C intakes in the United Kingdom with varying consumption of fruit juice.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Dietary factors causally affect the risk of kidney cancer: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextLow fruit and vegetable intakes are major modifiable determinants of disease. One hundred percent juice may facilitate intake and deliver essential nutrients and bioactive compounds. However, the position of 100% juice in healthy eating guidelines remains controversial due to its lower dietary fiber and higher free-sugar contents compared with whole fruits and vegetables.
objectiveTo conduct an umbrella review of systematic literature reviews with meta-analyses (MAs) to summarize the health benefits of drinking 100% fruit and/or vegetable juice. DATA SOURCES: Four databases (Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL) were systematically searched for MAs of 100% juice and any health outcomes. DATA ANALYSIS: Screening, quality, risk of bias, and content overlap tools were applied, and extracted data were narratively synthesized. No eligible studies for vegetable juice were found. Fifteen systematic literature reviews (51 primary MAs, 6 dose-response, and 87 subanalyses; 50-1200 mL/day; hours to years of duration) were included. Ten MAs (19.6%) reported health benefits (4 for blood pressure, 2 for vascular function, 3 for inflammation, 1 for stroke mortality), 3 MAs (5.9%) reported adverse risks (1 each for cardiovascular disease mortality, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes risk), while most (74.5%) reported no effect (blood lipids, body composition, liver function, metabolic health, cancers, and inflammation). Risks were limited to cohort studies and benefits were found in both cohort and intervention studies.
conclusionThe findings collate evidence showing some potential health benefits associated with 100% juice consumption, with fewer potential risks. The balance of evidence does not support the exclusion of 100% juice from food-based guides to healthy eating, although caution may be warranted in certain groups or individuals, and the body of evidence is not yet conclusive. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022380588.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.