The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of hypertension and CVD: a dose-response meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
A number of prospective cohort studies have investigated the associations between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and the risk of hypertension, CHD and stroke, but revealed mixed results. In the present study, we aimed to perform a dose-response meta-analysis of these prospective studies to clarify these associations. A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Embase databases up to 5 May 2014. Random- or fixed-effects models were used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) with 95 % CI for the highest compared with the lowest category of SSB consumption, and to conduct a dose-response analysis. A total of six prospective studies (240 726 participants and 80 411 incident cases of hypertension) from four publications on hypertension were identified. A total of four prospective studies (194 664 participants and 7396 incident cases of CHD) from four publications on CHD were identified. A total of four prospective studies (259 176 participants and 10 011 incident cases of stroke) from four publications on stroke were identified. The summary RR for incident hypertension was 1·08 (95 % CI 1·04, 1·12) for every additional one serving/d increase in SSB consumption. The summary RR for incident CHD was 1·17 (95 % CI 1·10, 1·24) for every serving/d increase in SSB consumption. There was no significant association between SSB consumption and total stroke (summary RR 1·06, 95 % CI 0·97, 1·15) for every serving/d increase in SSB consumption. The present meta-analysis suggested that a higher consumption of SSB was associated with a higher risk of hypertension and CHD, but not with a higher risk of stroke.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“SSBs are also associated with incidence of diabetes and CHD (Figure 6).257, 258”
From Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity: A Comprehensive Review (2016) · cites this paper as [258]
In the citing paper
“In a meta-analysis of prospective studies of SSB and hypertension, CHD, and stroke, the RR for a 1-serving increase in SSB/d was 1.17 (95 % CI 1.10, 1.24) for CHD and 1.08 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.12) for incident hypertension, but no clear effect was seen for total stroke (RR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.97, 1.15) (123).”
From Food Consumption and its Impact on Cardiovascular Disease: Importance of Solutions Focused on the Globalized Food System (2015) · cites this paper as [123]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 17,633
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689 · cited 1×
“Fixed-effects((18)) or random-effects((19)) models, selected on the basis of whether there was a between-study heterogeneity, were used to calculate the pooled RR with 95 % CI for the highest compared with the lowest category of SSB consumption.”
Inflammation and metabolic disorders
Hotamisligil, G. S. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05485 · Cited by 9,199
Uric Acid and Cardiovascular Risk
Feig, D. I., Kang, D., & Johnson, R. J. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra0800885 · Cited by 2,467
Methods for Trend Estimation from Summarized Dose-Response Data, with Applications to Meta-Analysis
Greenland, S., & Longnecker, M. P. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116237 · Cited by 2,353
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 1959, J Natl Cancer Inst, 22, 719
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mozaffarian, D. (2016) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.115.018585 · Cited by 2,216
“ated with increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and CHD (Figure 6).(257,258) These effects appear partly but not entirely mediated by adiposity, consistent with independent adverse”
Anand, S. S., Hawkes, C., de Souza, R. J., Mente, A., Dehghan, M., Nugent, R., Zulyniak, M. A., Weis, T., Bernstein, A. M., Krauss, R. M., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.050 · Cited by 507
Mendonça, R. D. D., Lopes, A. C. S., Pimenta, A. M., Gea, A., Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A., & Bes-Rastrollo, M. (2017) · American Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1093/ajh/hpw137 · Cited by 488
Micha, R., Shulkin, M., Peñalvo, J. L., Khatibzadeh, S., Singh, G. M., Rao, M., Fahimi, S., Powles, J. W., & Mozaffarian, D. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175149 · Cited by 507
Horn, L. V., Carson, J. A. S., Appel, L. J., Burke, L. E., Economos, C. D., Karmally, W., Lancaster, K. J., Lichtenstein, A. H., Johnson, R. K., Thomas, R. J., et al. (2016) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000462 · Cited by 442
Metadata
- Authors
- Xi, B., Huang, Y., Reilly, K. H., Li, S., Zheng, R., Barrio-Lopez, M. T., Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A., & Zhou, D.
- Affiliations
- Shandong University (CN)
- Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (CN)
- Jiangyin People's Hospital (CN)
- Linyi People's Hospital (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhou, Donghao
- Venue
- British Journal Of Nutrition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015-03-04
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 709-717
- ISSN
- 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2662
- OpenAlex
- W2115654907
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 3.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Keywords
- sugar-sweetened beverages, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, dose-response relationship, beverage consumption, prospective cohort
- MeSH terms
- Beverages, Coronary Disease, Humans, Hypertension, Prospective Studies, Risk, Cohort Studies, Evidence-Based Medicine, Dietary Sucrose, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
