The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ultra-processed food consumption and adult obesity risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Abstract
We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate observational studies assessing the association between ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption and the risk of overweight, obesity, and abdominal obesity in the general population. We searched the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and ISI Web of Science from inception until December 2020. Data were extracted from 12 studies (nine cross-sectional and three cohort studies). Odds ratio (OR) were pooled using a random-effects model. UPF consumption was associated with an increased risk of obesity (OR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.36, 1.77; I 2 = 55%), overweight (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.63; I 2 = 73%), and abdominal obesity (OR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.18, 1.68; I 2 = 62%). Furthermore, every 10% increase of UPF consumption in daily calorie intake was associated with a 7%, a 6%, and a 5% higher risk of overweight, obesity, and abdominal obesity, respectively. Dose-response meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies showed a positive linear association between UPF consumption and abdominal obesity. There was also a positive linear association between UPF consumption and risk of overweight/obesity in the analysis of cross-sectional studies and a positive monotonic association in the analysis of cohort studies. Our study suggests that UPF consumption is associated with an increased risk of excess weight or abdominal obesity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 non-dose-response analysis of seven cross-sectional designs showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher prevalence of obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 1.77; credibility class II; GRADE low).
“non-dose-response odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; class II; low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Pooled non-dose-response analysis of four cross-sectional studies showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of prevalence of overweight (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.63; credibility class III; GRADE very low).
“non-dose-response odds ratio 1.36, 1.14 to 1.63; class III; very low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Pooled dose-response analysis of four cross-sectional studies showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of prevalence of overweight (odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.10; credibility class III; GRADE low).
“Effect estimates from four cross sectional studies informed pooled analyses of direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risk of the prevalence of overweight (dose-response odds ratio 1.06, 1.03 to 1.10; class III; low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Synthesis of mixed cohort and cross-sectional designs showed a direct non-dose-response association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and risk of abdominal obesity (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.68; credibility class III; GRADE very low).
“non-dose-response odds ratio 1.41, 1.18 to 1.68; class III; very low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Analysis found weak to no evidence for an association between ultra-processed food exposure and overweight and obesity assessed together in non-dose-response (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.58; credibility class IV; GRADE low).
“non-dose-response odds ratio 1.29, 1.05 to 1.58; class IV; low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Pooled dose-response analysis of seven cross-sectional designs showed a direct association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher prevalence of obesity (odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.11; credibility class III; GRADE low).
“Pooled analyses including seven cross sectional study designs further showed direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and a higher prevalence of obesity (dose-response odds ratio 1.07, 1.03 to 1.11; class III; low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Synthesis of mixed cohort and cross-sectional designs showed a direct dose-response association between greater ultra-processed food exposure and risk of abdominal obesity (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.07; credibility class III; GRADE low).
“The risk of abdominal obesity was examined by synthesising effect estimates from mixed cohort and cross sectional study designs, which showed direct associations with greater ultra-processed food exposure (dose-response odds ratio 1.05, 1.02 to 1.07; class III; low”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Analysis found weak to no evidence for an association between ultra-processed food exposure and overweight and obesity assessed together in dose-response (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.06; credibility class IV; GRADE moderate).
“overweight and obesity (assessed together: dose-response odds ratio 1.03, 1.01 to 1.06; class IV; moderate”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Heterogeneity and imprecision may be partly explained by the treatment of different effect estimates (hazard ratios, odds ratios, and risk ratios) as approximately equivalent in various meta-analysis studies.
“The heterogeneity and imprecision noted across several of the pooled analyses, as shown by both the evidence classification criteria and GRADE assessments, may be partly explained by the treatment of different effect estimates derived from original research articles (hazard ratios, odds ratios, and risk ratios) as approximately equivalent in various meta-analysis studies.”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
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
Panethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Modesti, P. A., Reboldi, G., Cappuccio, F. P., Agyemang, C., Remuzzi, G., Rapi, S., Perruolo, E., Parati, G., & ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147601 · Cited by 1,366
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Brazilian adolescents and adults
Louzada, M. L. D. C., Baraldi, L. G., Steele, E. M., Martins, A. P. B., Canella, D. S., Moubarac, J.-C., Levy, R. B., Cannon, G., Afshin, A., Imamura, F., et al. (2015) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.018 · Cited by 656
Ultra-Processed Food Products and Obesity in Brazilian Households (2008–2009)
Canella, D. S., Levy, R. B., Martins, A. P. B., Claro, R. M., Moubarac, J.-C., Baraldi, L. G., Cannon, G., & Monteiro, C. A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092752 · Cited by 535
One-stage dose–response meta-analysis for aggregated data
Crippa, A., Discacciati, A., Bottai, M., Spiegelman, D., & Orsini, N. (2019) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280218773122 · Cited by 365
Moradi, S., Ziaei, R., Foshati, S., Mohammadi, H., Nachvak, S. M., & Rouhani, M. H. (2019) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2019.102211 · Cited by 88
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 47
- 10.1186/s12966-015-0317-y · DOI
- 10.1002/hec.1579 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41366-020-00650-z · DOI
- 10.2307/2533446 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S1368980019002854 · DOI
- 10.12860/jnp.2014.18 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1368980017001331 · DOI
- 10.2471/BLT.13.120287 · DOI
- 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s12889-017-4408-3 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1590/1678-9865201932e180170 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMra1203528 · DOI
- 10.1080/02791072.2012.662092 · DOI
- 10.1080/10408398.2018.1545218 · DOI
- 10.34172/jnp.2020.41 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0007114518001046 · DOI · Paper page
- Kafeshani M., 2015, Immunopathol Persa, 1, e04
- 10.1007/s11938-019-00246-1 · DOI
- 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006211 · DOI
- 10.15171/npj.2017.01 · DOI
- 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/obr.12107 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s00394-018-1819-6 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00394-015-0948-4 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.12.002 · DOI
- 10.17269/s41997-018-0130-x · DOI
- 10.17269/s41997-020-00429-9 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1368980017002130 · DOI
- 10.1177/1536867X0600600103 · DOI
- 10.1155/2018/7093260 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.04.002 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13679-017-0285-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.15171/jrip.2019.47 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00394-020-02367-1 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0232676 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13679-016-0214-y · DOI
- 10.3390/nu12082368 · DOI
- 10.1590/0102-311X00049318 · DOI
- 10.15171/npj.2017.19 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1368980018000861 · DOI
- 10.1590/1678-98652017000400003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jpedp.2015.07.016 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00443-2 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00125-019-4944-8 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13679-016-0233-8 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lane, M. M., Gamage, E., Du, S., Ashtree, D. N., McGuinness, A. J., Gauci, S., Baker, P., Lawrence, M., Rebholz, C. M., Srour, B., et al. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-077310 · Cited by 1,153
Liu, Z., Huang, H., Zeng, Y., Chen, Y., & Xu, C. (2023) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114522003956 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Moradi, S., Entezari, M. H., Mohammadi, H., Jayedi, A., Lazaridi, A.-V., Kermani, M. A. H., & Miraghajani, M.
- Affiliations
- Department of Clinical Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Science, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
- Department of Clinical Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutritional Science and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- The Early Life Research Unit, Division of Child Health, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Clinical Tuberculosis and Epidemiology Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-06-30
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 249-260
- ISSN
- 1040-8398
- 1549-7852
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
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
