Ultra-Processed Food Intakes and Health Outcomes in Adults Older Than 60 Years: A Systematic Review
Shahatah FA, Hill TR, Fairley A, Watson AW
Nutrition reviews · 12 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Vínculos de autores con la industriaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Revisión sistemática (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
- Sin clasificar
- Fay A. Shahatah
- Gobierno
- Kuwait Cultural Office
- Autores
- Al menos un autor declara un vínculo económico con la industria
Según 2 financiadores declarados y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2024-12-20 · Nutr Rev · vol. 83 · número 9 · págs. 1711–1724
- Editorial
- Oxford University Press
- Citado
- 14 citas · más que el 83% de estudios similares · 1.7× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 76 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Palabras clave
- ultra-processed foods, older adults, NOVA classification, frailty, dyslipidemia, renal function decline, abdominal obesity, cognitive performance, diet and aging
- MeSH
- humans, diet, cross-sectional studies, aging, food handling, aged, middle aged, female, male, fast foods, frailty, food, processed
4 autores
- Fay A Shahatah🇬🇧 · autor de correspondenciaNewcastle University
- Tom R. Hill🇬🇧Newcastle University
- Andrea Fairley🇬🇧Newcastle University
- Anthony W Watson🇬🇧Newcastle University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Context
Relationships between ultraprocessed food (UPF) intakes and health have been well described in adults, but evidence of these relationships in older adults is rather limited. Demographic shifts in aging emphasize the importance of understanding the role of diet in maintaining health during later life.
Objective
The aim of this systematic review was to identify health outcomes associated with UPF consumption in those aged ≥60 years.
Data sources
The Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched from inception until June 2023, using search terms representing UPF and any health outcome. Observational studies restricted to individuals aged ≥60 years using the Nova food classification were included. Articles were screened independently by 2 researchers using PECOS inclusion criteria.
Data extraction
Two-thirds of the studies in the present review were prospective cohort studies (n = 4) and the rest were cross-sectional (n = 2). The number of participants ranged from 652 to 2713 across the 6 studies. The mean age of participants ranged between 67 and 73 years.
Data analysis
In the prospective cohort studies, the highest consumption of UPF was associated with incident frailty, incident dyslipidemia, renal function decline, and abdominal obesity. For cross-sectional studies, the highest intake of UPF was associated with negative outcomes similar to young and middle-aged cohorts, with the addition of nutritional frailty and worse cognitive performance.
Conclusions
Currently, the limited understanding of how high UPF intakes could be associated with negative health outcomes for older adults influences the ability to inform policy and practice recommendations. More research is required owing to the very limited number of studies, specifically in older adults.
Systematic review registration
PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023442783.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY).
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.