Ultra-processed food and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies
Delpino FM, Figueiredo LM, Bielemann RM, da Silva BGC, Dos Santos FS, Mintem GC, Flores TR, Arcêncio RA, Nunes BP
International journal of epidemiology · 121 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Gobierno
- National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
Según 2 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2021-11-09 · Int J Epidemiol · vol. 51 · número 4 · págs. 1120–1141
- Editorial
- Oxford University Press
- Citado
- 167 citas · más que el 97% de estudios similares · 5.9× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 73 trabajos
- Acceso
- Lectura gratuita
- Áreas de investigación
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
- Palabras clave
- Meta-analysis, Medicine, Type 2 diabetes, Relative risk, Confidence interval, Environmental health, Diabetes mellitus, Scopus, MEDLINE, Gerontology, Internal medicine, Endocrinology, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, diabetes mellitus, type 2, diet, risk, longitudinal studies, fast foods
9 autores
- Felipe Mendes Delpino🇧🇷 · autor de correspondenciaUniversidade Federal de Pelotas; Universidade de São Paulo
- Lílian Munhoz Figueiredo🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pelotas
- Renata Moraes Bielemann🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pelotas
- Bruna Gonçalves Cordeiro da Silva🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pelotas
- Francine Silva dos Santos🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Gicele Costa Mintem🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pelotas
- Thaynã Ramos Flores🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pelotas
- Ricardo Alexandre Arcêncio🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Bruno Pereira Nunes🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pelotas
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
The consumption of some food groups is associated with the risk of diabetes. However, there is no evidence from meta-analysis which evaluates the consumption of ultra-processed products in the risk of diabetes. This study aimed to review the literature assessing longitudinally the association between consumption of ultra-processed food and the risk of type 2 diabetes and to quantify this risk through a meta-analysis.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with records from PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS), Scielo, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. We included longitudinal studies assessing ultra-processed foods and the risk of type 2 diabetes. The review process was conducted independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle Ottawa scale assessed the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effect of moderate and high consumption of ultra-processed food on the risk of diabetes.
Results
In total 2272 records were screened, of which 18 studies, including almost 1.1 million individuals, were included in this review and 72% showed a positive association between ultra-processed foods and the risk of diabetes. According to the studies included in the meta-analysis, compared with non-consumption, moderate intake of ultra-processed food increased the risk of diabetes by 12% [relative risk (RR): 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.17, I2 = 24%], whereas high intake increased risk by 31% (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.21-1.42, I2 = 60%).
Conclusions
The consumption of ultra-processed foods increased the risk for type 2 diabetes as dose-response effect, with moderate to high credibility of evidence.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.