Rapid Response: Re: Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses Dear Editor A pervasive issue in health research is overlooking uncertainty in interpreting findings. Lane et al employ the GRADE methodology, which is designed to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Using this they judged the majority of evidence in this area to be of "very low" or "low" certainty, suggesting a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the true impact of UPF (as defined by the authors) on the health outcomes assessed. This critical aspect of scientific inquiry—acknowledging the limits of our confidence in the data—is often glossed over, leading to potentially misleading conclusions about the strength of the evidence. Despite assessing it, Lane et al. fail to adequately communicate the highly uncertain findings in their conclusions. This raises the question: why assess uncertainty if it is not then communicated effectively? Secondly, introducing a "credibility" method alongside GRADE to evaluate the evidence poses additional challenges. This method aims to assess the reliability of findings from meta-analyses but lacks thorough validation for its effectiveness. Without a robust framework to establish its credibility, its application may introduce inconsistencies in how evidence is interpreted and presented. The reliance on such an unvalidated method undermines the rigour of the review process, casting doubt on the conclusions drawn about the relationship between UPF consumption and adverse health outcomes. More at link: https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310/rr-1 Original study: Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses Abstract Objective To evaluate the existing meta-analytic evidence of associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods, as defined by the Nova food classification system, and adverse health outcomes. Design Systematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses. Data sources MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manual searches of reference lists from 2009 to June 2023. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross sectional study designs. To evaluate the credibility of evidence, pre-specified evidence classification criteria were applied, graded as convincing (“class I”), highly suggestive (“class II”), suggestive (“class III”), weak (“class IV”), or no evidence (“class V”). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework, categorised as “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “very low” quality. Results The search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response associations and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9 888 373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low). Of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (class V). Overall, using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as low quality, with 19 rated as very low quality and four rated as moderate quality. Conclusions Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes. These findings provide a rationale to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of using population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. They also inform and provide support for urgent mechanistic research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023412732
