Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-SOD-20 standard review
Sugary drinks and weight gain: meta-analysis
Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Overview
Malik VS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2013 · PMID 23966427 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.058362
Adding sugary drinks increased adult weight by about 0.85 kg in trials; cohorts show weight gain per serving.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Do SSBs promote weight gain?
- How was the study done?
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohorts and RCTs.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
32 articles (cohorts n=25,745 children/174,252 adults; RCTs n=2,772/292); Children and adults
- What was actually found?
Cohorts: per daily serving BMI +0.06 (children) and +0.22 kg/year (adults, random effects); RCTs: children BMI -0.17 (-0.39 to 0.05) with reduction; adults +0.85 kg (0.50-1.20) with SSB addition.
- How large was the observed effect?
+0.85 kg (RCTs adults)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Sugary drinks add weight.
- What are the study's limitations?
Child RCT estimate imprecise (random effects CI crosses 0); Overlap with other reviews
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-SOD-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term size of effect.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB
- Journal
- Am J Clin Nutr
- Year
- 2013
- Identifier
- PMID 23966427 DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.058362 · PMC3778861
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement; NIH grants
2. Research question
Do SSBs promote weight gain?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohorts and RCTs.
- Population
Children and adults
- Country
Multinational
- Period
Literature to March 2013
- Sample size
32 articles (cohorts n=25,745 children/174,252 adults; RCTs n=2,772/292)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
not stated in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
SSB intake or SSB addition/reduction
- Comparator
Lower intake/control
- Endpoints
BMI, weight
- Statistical methods
Random/fixed effects
5. Actual results
- Results
Cohorts: per daily serving BMI +0.06 (children) and +0.22 kg/year (adults, random effects); RCTs: children BMI -0.17 (-0.39 to 0.05) with reduction; adults +0.85 kg (0.50-1.20) with SSB addition.
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Evidence that SSB consumption promotes weight gain in children and adults.
6. Strengths
- Includes RCTs and cohorts
7. Weaknesses
- Child RCT estimate imprecise (random effects CI crosses 0)
- Overlap with other reviews
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Single group of authors; heterogeneity.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Small effects per serving; consistent direction.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-SOD-02.
11. Independent contrary findings
None.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Good evidence.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | high |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
None.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card).
- A. What was actually studied?
SSB and weight.
- B. What did the authors find?
As above.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As above.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports weight claim.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Consistent.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable