ReviewFood & nutrition research2025
Definitions of ultra-processed foods beyond NOVA: a systematic review and evaluation.
Review in Food & nutrition research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consuming an unprocessed diet reduces energy intake: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial reveals a role for human nutritional intelligence.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Trial
- Ultra-processed Foods and Athletes: Current Insights on Classification, Use, Awareness, and Impact-A Narrative Review.Sports medicine - open · 2026Review
- Ultra-Processed Foods and Metabolic Dysfunction: Mechanisms, Clinical Implications, and Public Health Perspectives. Position Paper of the Italian Association of Dietetics and Clinical Nutrition (ADI).Current nutrition reports · 2026Review
- The Gut-brain-adipose Axis in Ultra-processed Food and Obesity: A Mechanistic Synthesis and Its Implications for Food Classification.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Article
- A call for methodological rigour: suspending systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on ultra-processed foods.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Operationally Defining and Targeting Ultraprocessed Foods: Insights From US Policy Proposals.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- The Purpose of Food Processing and Ultra-Processed Food: the Potential, Pitfalls and Path Forward for Public Health.Current nutrition reports · 2026Review
- Evolution of Food Classification Systems and Assessing Diet Quality.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- The ultra-processed foods paradox: When classification overlooks nutritional complexity.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Ultra-processed food exposure and health outcomes: Current evidence, controversies, and future perspectives.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
- Exposure to processing from ultraprocessed diets and in feeding studies.Current research in food science · 2026Article
- Ultraprocessed food, physical activity, and executive function: correlation and comparative study of university students in Mexico City and Salamanca.Frontiers in psychology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are associated with negative health outcomes, but current classification systems, including the dominant NOVA system, are typically not suitable for identifying which factors of these foods may be harmful. New ways of defining UPFs are needed to better understand how food processing affects health. Objective: To identify classification systems that include a category for ultra-processed or highly processed foods with a focus on comparing their definitions and provide a current evaluation of available alternatives to NOVA. Design: A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with the search strategy developed in collaboration with a university librarian. The literature search was completed on 18 December 2023, using databases Medline, Embase (via Ovid), and Web of Science. No human participants were included. Results: We identified six systems - NOVA, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), University of North Carolina (UNC), UnProcessed Pantry Project (UP3), and Siga - that categorize highly processed food or UPFs. These systems differ in structure and detail, with NOVA, EPIC, and Siga providing specific examples of processing techniques. Regarding additives, NOVA, Siga, and UP3 include them explicitly, with Siga offering the most detailed categorization based on additives and ingredients. Siga also includes quantitative measures for nutritional quality, including cut-offs for sugar, fat, and salt, while IFPRI and UP3 address nutritional quality non-quantitatively. Discussion: When comparing NOVA's UPF category with the highly processed food or UPF categories used in the other five identified systems, we found that none specifies processing techniques clearly. Both NOVA and Siga define additives unique to their UPF categories. Siga stands out by addressing the diverse risks associated with additives and offering quantitative nutritional quality criteria, thus addressing some of the criticisms of how UPFs are commonly defined. Conclusions: Siga represents a valuable, but not final, step forward in classifying UPFs and could serve as a reference in developing a new operational definition for UPFs.
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.