Ultra-Processed Food and Chronic Kidney Disease Risk: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Recommendations
Leonberg KE, Maski MR, Scott TM, Naumova EN
Nutrients · 3 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
- National Science Foundation
- Universidad u hospital
- University of Pennsylvania
- Universidad u hospital
- Division of Graduate Education
- Gobierno
- National Science Foundation Innovations in Graduate Education Program
- Gobierno
- U.S. National Science Foundation
- Subvenciones
- National Science Foundation (1855886)
Según 5 financiadores declarados y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2025-04-30 · Nutrients · vol. 17 · número 9 · pág. 1560
- Editorial
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Citado
- 11 citas · más que el 93% de estudios similares · 3.1× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 62 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, CINAHL, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Observational study, Kidney disease, Environmental health, Hazard ratio, MEDLINE, Confidence interval, Internal medicine, Intensive care medicine, Psychological intervention
- MeSH
- humans, diet, risk factors, nutritive value, food handling, adult, female, male, renal insufficiency, chronic, fast foods, food, processed
4 autores
- Kristin E. Leonberg🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaTufts University
- Manish R. Maski🇺🇸Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
- Tammy Maria Scott🇺🇸Tufts University
- Elena N. Naumova🇺🇸Tufts University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are formulations of ingredients that are mostly of exclusive industrial use and may contain additives like artificial colors, flavors, or stabilizers. The sale and consumption of these foods have been increasing despite their associations with increased risk for several non-communicable diseases, including chronic kidney disease (CKD). Compared to less processed and perishable foods, UPFs have longer shelf stability, are widely accessible, and are convenient. They also tend to be more affordable and lower in nutritional quality. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023488201) was to investigate whether consumption of UPF is associated with a higher risk of CKD in adults. Methods: We completed a systematic search using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases to identify observational studies published since the wide acceptance of UPF classification and conducted a random-effects model to pool the risk estimates. Results: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, of which four were eligible for meta-analysis. Across these studies, there were 19,645 incident CKD cases from individuals free of baseline CKD. Using a random-effects model, higher UPF intake was significantly associated with increased CKD risk (pooled log-hazard ratio = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.07-0.28; p Conclusions: Given the substantial evidence from this systematic review and meta-analysis indicating an association between UPF and CKD, it is recommended for public health policies to address this risk. Promoting dietary guidelines that encourage the consumption of minimally processed foods could potentially mitigate the prevalence of CKD and improve overall public health outcomes.
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.