Association between ultra-processed food consumption and risk of irritable bowel syndrome and functional dyspepsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Li S, Dong W, Chen X, Tan X
Frontiers in medicine · 1 cita
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
Según la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2026-03-24 · Front Med (Lausanne) · vol. 13 · pág. 1780040
- Editorial
- Frontiers Media
- Citado
- 1 cita · más que el 84% de estudios similares · 2.9× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 46 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Gastrointestinal motility and disorders · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Gut microbiota and health
- Palabras clave
- ultra-processed foods, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, functional gastrointestinal disorders, dietary intake, NOVA classification, soft drinks, sugar-sweetened beverages, diet and gut health, publication bias, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis
4 autores
- Shengkai Li🇨🇳Binzhou Medical University
- Weikai Dong🇨🇳Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
- Xi Chen🇨🇳Binzhou Medical University
- Xiaolong Tan🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaBinzhou Medical University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are increasingly prevalent in global diets and have been linked to various adverse health outcomes. However, evidence regarding their association with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia (FD), remains inconsistent.
Objective
To systematically evaluate the association between UPFs consumption and the risk of IBS and FD through a comprehensive meta-analysis of observational studies.
Methods
We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception through December 2025. Observational studies assessing UPFs intake and clinically diagnosed IBS or FD in adults were included. Pooled effect estimates [odds ratios (OR)] were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics, and subgroup analyses were performed by exposure type and assessment method.
Results
Ten studies (N = 232,448) were included. High UPFs consumption was significantly associated with higher odds of IBS (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.49; based on 9 studies) and FD (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.07-1.49; based on 3 studies). However, the FD finding was primarily driven by a single large cohort and lost statistical significance in sensitivity analysis, indicating the need for cautious interpretation. Subgroup analyses revealed the strongest association for carbonated/sugar-sweetened beverages (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.40-2.80). Heterogeneity was substantially reduced in studies using standardized NOVA classifications or quartile-based comparisons (I 2 = 0%). Sensitivity analyses supported robustness. The Egger test did not reveal significant funnel plot asymmetry for IBS outcomes (p = 0.153). Given the limited number of included studies (n = 9), this cannot definitively rule out the presence of publication bias.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that reducing UPFs intake may be a promising dietary strategy for IBS prevention and management. For FD, the evidence is preliminary and requires confirmation in larger prospective studies.
Systematic review registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251269914, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420251269914).
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.