Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies

First author, year

Study design

Study period, area

Study population, age

Sample size

Exposure measures

Health outcome

Outcome measures

Comparison

Effect size (95% CI)

Rico-Campà, 2019 [24]

Prospective cohort study

1999–2014, Spain

University graduates,

20-91y

19,899

FFQ

All-cause mortality

Medical records, database

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.62 (1.13, 2.33)

Schnabel, 2019 [25]

Prospective cohort study

2009–2017, France

Adults participants,

≥45y

44,551

Dietary records, interview, biomarkers

All-cause mortality

Clinical data

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.25 (0.99, 1.57)

Blanco-Rojo, 2019 [26]

Prospective cohort study

2008–2016, Spain

Adult participants, ≥18y

11,898

Questionnaire

All-cause mortality

Computerized search

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.44 (1.01, 2.07)

Kim, 2019 [27]

Prospective cohort study

1988–2011, USA

Adult participants, ≥20y

11,898

Dietary records,

questionnaire

All-cause mortality

Cardiovascular disease mortality

Database

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.30 (1.08, 1.57)

HR: 1.13 (0.74, 1.71)

Srour, 2019 [28]

Prospective cohort study

2009–2018, France

Adult participants, ≥18y

105,159

Dietary records, interview, biomarkers

All cardiovascular diseases

Coronary heart diseases

Cerebrovascular diseases

Questionnaire, medical records, database

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.23 (1.04, 1.45)

HR: 1.18 (0.93, 1.52)

HR: 1.23 (1.00, 1.53)

Mendonça, 2017 [29]

Prospective cohort study

1999–2015, Spain

University graduates, 20-91y

14,790

FFQ

Hypertension

Self-reported,

clinical data

T3 vs. T1

HR: 1.21 (1.06, 1.37)

Melo, 2018 [41]

Cross-sectional study

2012, Brazil

9th graders, NC

109,104

Questionnaire

Asthma

Wheezing

Questionnaire

Q5 vs. Q1

OR: 1.27 (1.15, 1.41)

OR: 1.42 (1.35, 1.50)

Schnabel, 2018 [38]

Prospective cohort study

2008–2018, France

Adult participants, ≥18y

33,343

Dietary records,

questionnaire

Functional gastrointestinal disorders

Questionnaire, medical history, symptoms

Q4 vs. Q1

OR: 1.25 (1.12, 1.39)

Adjibade, 2019 [36]

Prospective cohort study

2009–2018, France

Adult volunteers, ≥18y

26,730

Dietary records

Depression

Clinical data

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.30 (1.15, 1.47)

Gómez-Donoso, 2018 [37]

Prospective cohort study

1999–2016, Spain

University graduates, NC

14,907

FFQ

Depression

Questionnaire,

clinical interview

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.33 (1.07, 1.64)

Steele, 2019 [30]

Cross-sectional study

2009–2014, USA

Adult participants, ≥20y

6385

Interview

Metabolic syndrome

Interviews, health examination

Q5 vs. Q1

OR: 1.28 (1.09, 1.50)

Lavigne-Robichaud,

2018 [31]

Cross-sectional study

2005–2009, Canada

Adult participants, ≥18y

811

Dietary records

Metabolic syndrome

Clinical data

Q5 vs. Q1

OR: 1.90 (1.14, 3.17)

Juul, 2018 [32]

Cross-sectional study

2005–2014, USA

Adults participants, 20–64y

15,977

Interview

Overweight

Obesity

Abdominal obesity

Clinical data

Q5 vs. Q1

OR: 1.48 (1.25, 1.76)

OR: 1.53 (1.29, 1.81)

OR: 1.62 (1.39, 1.89)

Louzada, 2015 [33]

Cross-sectional study

2008–2009, Brazil

Individuals, ≥10y

30,243

Dietary records

Overweight

Obesity

Clinical data

Q5 vs. Q1

OR: 1.26 (0.95, 1.69)

OR: 1.98 (1.23, 3.12)

Mendonca, 2016 [35]

Prospective cohort study

1999–2012, Spain

University graduates,

middle-aged

8451

FFQ

Overweight

Self-reported

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.26 (1.10, 1.45)

Nardocci, 2019 [16]

Cross-sectional study

2004–2005, Canada

Adult participants, ≥18y

19,363

Dietary records

Obesity

Clinical data (32% self-reported)

Q5 vs. Q1

OR: 1.32 (1.05, 1.57)

Silva, 2018 [34]

Cross-sectional study

2008–2010, Brazil

Civil servants from universities and research organizations, 35–64y

8977

FFQ

Overweight

Obesity

Clinical data

Q4 vs. Q1

OR: 1.31 (1.13, 1.51) OR: 1.41 (1.18, 1.69)

Fiolet, 2018 [39]

Prospective cohort study

2009–2017, France

Adult volunteers, ≥18y

104,980

Dietary records

Overall cancer

Prostate cancer

Colorectal cancer

Breast cancer

Questionnaire, medical records, database

Q4 vs. Q1

HR: 1.23 (1.08, 1.40)

HR: 0.93 (0.61, 1.40)

HR: 1.23 (1.08, 1.40)

HR: 1.13 (0.89, 1.42)

Sartorelli, 2019 [40]

Cross-sectional study

2011–2012, Brazil.

Adult women, ≥20y

785

Dietary records

Obesity

Overweight

Gestational diabetes mellitus

Clinical data

T3 vs. T1

OR: 3.06 (1.27, 3.37)

OR: 1.17 (0.75, 1.82)

OR: 0.82 (0.49, 1.36)

Sandoval-Insausti, 2019 [42]

Prospective cohort study

2008–2012, Spain

Individuals, ≥60y

1822

Interview

Frailty

Clinical data

Q4 vs. Q1

OR: 3.67 (2.00, 6.73)

  1. Abbreviation: FFQ food frequency questionnaire, HR hazard ratio, OR odds ratio, Q quartile or quintile, T tertile, NC not clear