CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dose–response meta-analysis of ultra-processed food with the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: evidence from prospective cohort studies

Yuan, Lijun, Hu, Huifang, Li, Tianze, Zhang, Jinli, Feng, Yifei, Yang, Xingjin, Li, Yang, Wu, Yuying, Li, Xi, Huang, Hao, Hu, Fulan, Chen, Chuanqi, Zhang, Ming, Zhao, Yang, Hu, Dongsheng·2023·Food & Function
DOI 10.1039/d2fo02628g
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Each additional daily serving of UPF is associated with a 4% higher risk of CVEs and a 2% higher risk of total death. For maintaining good health, one should consume less UPF and more unprocessed or minimally processed food.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/d2fo02628g

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Pooled dose-response analysis of nine cohorts showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.03; credibility class III; GRADE moderate).

    “Pooled effect estimates from nine dose-response and seven non-dose-response cohorts showed direct associations between greater exposure to ultra-processed foods and higher risks of incident all cause mortality (dose-response risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.03; credibility assessment class III; GRADE assessment moderate”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

  • Pooled dose-response analysis of six cohorts showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease morbidity (risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.06; credibility class III; GRADE low).

    “as well as incident cardiovascular disease morbidity (dose-response risk ratio 1.04, 1.02 to 1.06; class III; low”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

  • Pooled non-dose-response analysis of six cohorts showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease events such as morbidity and mortality (risk ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.54; credibility class III; GRADE very low).

    “non-dose-response risk ratio 1.35, 1.18 to 1.54; class III; very low”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

  • Pooled non-dose-response analysis of six cohorts showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease morbidity (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.33; credibility class III; GRADE low).

    “non-dose-response risk ratio 1.20, 1.09 to 1.33; class III; low”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

  • Pooled non-dose-response analysis of seven cohorts showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.27; credibility class II; GRADE low).

    “non-dose-response risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; class II; low”

    From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Peeters, 2018, Nat. Rev. Endocrinol., 14, 430, 10.1038/s41574-018-0026-0 · DOI
  2. Li, 2020, Diabetes Care, 43, 1929, 10.2337/dc20-0256 · DOI
  3. Monteiro, 2018, Public Health Nutr., 21, 5, 10.1017/S1368980017000234 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Moubarac, 2013, Public Health Nutr., 16, 2240, 10.1017/S1368980012005009 · DOI
  5. Martínez Steele, 2016, BMJ Open, 6, e009892, 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Adams, 2015, Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act., 12, 160, 10.1186/s12966-015-0317-y · DOI
  7. Lane, 2021, Obes. Rev., 22, e13146, 10.1111/obr.13146 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Pagliai, 2021, Br. J. Nutr., 125, 308, 10.1017/S0007114520002688 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Taneri, 2022, Am. J. Epidemiol., 191, 1323, 10.1093/aje/kwac039 · DOI
  10. Srour, 2019, Br. Med. J., 365, l1451, 10.1136/bmj.l1451 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Zhong, 2021, Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act., 18, 21, 10.1186/s12966-021-01081-3 · DOI
  12. Bonaccio, 2021, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 113, 446, 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa299 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Du, 2021, J. Nutr., 151, 3746, 10.1093/jn/nxab285 · DOI
  14. Rico-Campà, 2019, Br. Med. J., 365, l1949, 10.1136/bmj.l1949 · DOI
  15. Kim, 2019, Public Health Nutr., 22, 1777, 10.1017/S1368980018003890 · DOI
  16. Blanco-Rojo, 2019, Mayo Clin. Proc., 94, 2178, 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.03.035 · DOI
  17. Moher, 2009, Br. Med. J., 339, b2535, 10.1136/bmj.b2535 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Stroup, 2000, J. Am. Med. Assoc., 283, 2008, 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · DOI · Paper page
  19. G. A.Wells , B. J.Shea , D.O'Connell , J.Peterson , V.Welch , M.Losos and P.Tugwell , The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses , 2000
  20. Han, 2019, Ann. Intern. Med., 171, 711, 10.7326/M19-0699 · DOI
  21. Orsini, 2012, Am. J. Epidemiol., 175, 66, 10.1093/aje/kwr265 · DOI
  22. Bekkering, 2008, Am. J. Epidemiol., 167, 1017, 10.1093/aje/kwn005 · DOI
  23. Tamakoshi, 2011, Eur. J. Epidemiol., 26, 285, 10.1007/s10654-011-9548-7 · DOI
  24. Dochi, 2009, Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 217, 37, 10.1620/tjem.217.37 · DOI
  25. Higgins, 2003, BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed.), 327, 557, 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Huang, 2021, Indoor Air, 31, 1722, 10.1111/ina.12867 · DOI
  27. Santiago de Araújo Pio, 2017, Mayo Clin. Proc., 92, 1644, 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.07.019 · DOI
  28. Egger, 1997, Br. Med. J., 315, 629, 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Begg, 1994, Biometrics, 50, 1088, 10.2307/2533446 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Romero Ferreiro, 2021, Public Health Nutr., 1
  31. Orlich, 2022, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 115, 1589, 10.1093/ajcn/nqac043 · DOI
  32. Suksatan, 2021, Nutrients, 14, 174, 10.3390/nu14010174 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kim, 2021, Clin. Nutr., 40, 1060, 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.07.007 · DOI
  34. Harcombe, 2017, Br. J. Sports Med., 51, 1743, 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096550 · DOI
  35. Li, 2012, CNS Neurosci. Ther., 18, 691, 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2012.00355.x · DOI · Paper page
  36. Fransen, 2017, Eur. J. Public Health, 27, 274
  37. Jha, 2014, N. Engl. J. Med., 370, 60, 10.1056/NEJMra1308383 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Rehm, 2021, Nutrients, 13, 2652, 10.3390/nu13082652 · DOI
  39. Zhao, 2021, Sports Med., 51, 1439, 10.1007/s40279-021-01452-7 · DOI
  40. Hall, 2020, Cell Metab., 32, 690, 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.08.014 · DOI
  41. Alonso-Pedrero, 2020, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 111, 1259, 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa075 · DOI
  42. Wang, 2018, Ageing Res. Rev., 48, 11, 10.1016/j.arr.2018.09.002 · DOI
  43. Egnell, 2021, Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act., 18, 38, 10.1186/s12966-021-01108-9 · DOI
  44. Kelly, 2019, Public Health Nutr., 22, 1125, 10.1017/S1368980018003737 · DOI
  45. Juul, 2021, Adv. Nutr., 12, 1673, 10.1093/advances/nmab049 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yuan, L., Hu, H., Li, T., Zhang, J., Feng, Y., Yang, X., Li, Y., Wu, Y., Li, X., Huang, H., Hu, F., Chen, C., Zhang, M., Zhao, Y., & Hu, D.
Affiliations
  • Department of General Practice, The Affiliated Luohu Hospital of Shenzhen University Medical School, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People's Republic of China
  • Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shenzhen University Medical School, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People's Republic of China
  • Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, People's Republic of China
  • Department of Endocrinology, Shenzhen Qianhai Shekou Free Trade Zone Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People's Republic of China
ORCID
Hu, Dongsheng
Venue
Food & Function
Publisher
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Published
2023
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
2586-2596
ISSN
  • 2042-6496
  • 2042-650X
DOI
10.1039/d2fo02628g
Cited by
53
References
4
Language
en
Licence
rsc.li/journals-terms-of-use (am, 401 d)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (82073646, 81973152, 82273707)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2021A1515012503)

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