Association between higher consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of diabetes and its complications: A systematic review & updated meta-analysis
Souza M, Moura FS, Lima LCV, Amaral MJM
Metabolism: clinical and experimental · 8 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
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 no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2025-01-21 · Metabolism · vol. 165 · pág. 156134
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 15 citas · más que el 96% de estudios similares · 4.2× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 52 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Palabras clave
- Meta-analysis, Diabetes mellitus, Consumption (sociology), Association (psychology), Medicine, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Psychology, Endocrinology, Sociology, Social science
- MeSH
- humans, diabetes mellitus, diabetes complications, diet, risk factors, fast foods, food, processed
4 autores
- Matheus Henrique Gonçalves de Souza🇧🇷 · autor de correspondenciaUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
- Felipe S. Moura🇧🇷Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
- Luan C V Lima🇧🇷Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
- Marcio J M Amaral🇧🇷Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background & aims
Recent epidemiologic studies on the association between higher consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and risk of incident diabetes have reported conflicting results in populations worldwide. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of this association.
Methods
PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched (from 2009 to November 14, 2024) for prospective cohort studies reporting data on the association between UPF intake (defined by the NOVA classification) and the risk of incident diabetes or its complications in adults (>18 years). Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modelling to obtain pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and the GRADE approach was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
Results
We included 14 prospective cohort studies with a total of 692,508 participants. The highest UPF consumption was significantly associated with an increased risk of diabetes (n = 9 studies; HR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.14 to 1.34, I2 = 69 %) compared with the lowest UPF intake (very low certainty of evidence). Subgroup analysis showed that studies published in 2024 had a smaller effect size compared with earlier studies. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on study location, duration of follow-up, method and frequency of dietary intake assessment, and risk of bias. Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings. Each 10 % increase in total UPF consumption was associated with a 13 % (n = 4 studies; HR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.08 to 1.18, I2 = 37 %) increased risk of diabetes. Preliminary data from 4 cohort studies also suggest that high UPF consumption may be associated with complications in diabetic patients, including microvascular/cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and mortality.
Conclusion
UPF consumption is associated with a higher risk of incident diabetes and may contribute to its complications. Urgent public health efforts should prioritize the reduction of UPF consumption.
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.