Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-05 standard review
Ultra-processed food and type 2 diabetes in France
Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Participants of the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort.
Overview
Srour B et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2020 · PMID 31841598 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942
Each 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 15% more diabetes.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF consumption associated with T2D?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort with repeated 24-h records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
104,707; 821 T2D cases; Adults >=18, 79% women
- What was actually found?
HR 1.15 (1.06-1.25) per 10-point increment; robust to adjustment for comorbidities (1.13) and weight change (1.13); per 100 g/day 1.05; absolute rates 113 vs 166 per 100,000 PY.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.15 (1.06-1.25)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Debras C, Druesne-Pecollo N, Chazelas E, Deschasaux M, Hercberg S, Galan P, Monteiro CA, Julia C, Touvier M
- Journal
- JAMA Intern Med
- Year
- 2020
- Identifier
- PMID 31841598 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942 · PMC6990737
- 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
2. Research question
Is UPF consumption associated with T2D?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohort with repeated 24-h records.
- Population
Adults >=18, 79% women
- Country
France
- Period
2009-2019; median 6.0 y
- Sample size
104,707; 821 T2D cases
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
not stated in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
% UPF (per 10 points)
- Comparator
Lower UPF
- Endpoints
Incident T2D
- Statistical methods
Cause-specific Cox
5. Actual results
- Results
HR 1.15 (1.06-1.25) per 10-point increment; robust to adjustment for comorbidities (1.13) and weight change (1.13); per 100 g/day 1.05; absolute rates 113 vs 166 per 100,000 PY.
- Absolute risks
113 vs 166 per 100,000 person-years (lowest vs highest)
- Authors' conclusion
Higher UPF associated with higher T2D risk; needs confirmation.
6. Strengths
- Large
- Robust to adjustments
7. Weaknesses
- NOVA misclassification possible
- Residual confounding
- Self-reported diet
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Confounding.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Moderate relative, small absolute differences.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-UPF-03.
11. Independent contrary findings
None.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supportive.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| 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
Causality.
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
(Narrative) every 10% increase raised T2D risk by 15% (Srour 2020).
- A. What was actually studied?
UPF and T2D.
- B. What did the authors find?
HR 1.15.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Needs confirmation.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Causal 'raised'.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Number correct; causal wording.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable