Systematic reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-10 standard review
Ultra-processed food and body fat in children
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and body fat during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review.
Overview
Costa CS et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28676132 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001331
Most studies found more body fat in children eating more ultra-processed foods, including sweets and soft drinks.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with body fat in children/adolescents?
- How was the study done?
Systematic review (no meta-analysis).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
26 studies (15 cohorts); Healthy children and adolescents
- What was actually found?
Most studies of UPF groups and soft drinks found positive associations with body fat.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not pooled
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
No pooling; Heterogeneous exposures
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Costa CS, Del-Ponte B, Assunção MCF, Santos IS
- Journal
- Public Health Nutr
- Year
- 2018
- Identifier
- PMID 28676132 DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001331 · PMC10260745
- 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 associated with body fat in children/adolescents?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Systematic review – Systematic review (no meta-analysis).
- Population
Healthy children and adolescents
- Country
Multinational
- Period
not stated in abstract
- Sample size
26 studies (15 cohorts)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
not stated in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
UPF groups or specific UPF (soft drinks, sweets, chocolate, cereals)
- Comparator
Lower consumption
- Endpoints
Body fat
- Statistical methods
Narrative synthesis
5. Actual results
- Results
Most studies of UPF groups and soft drinks found positive associations with body fat.
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Most studies found positive associations; need standardised classification.
6. Strengths
- Systematic search
7. Weaknesses
- No pooling
- Heterogeneous exposures
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
No quantitative synthesis.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-UPF-02.
11. Independent contrary findings
None.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Weak-moderate support.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| 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?
UPF and child body fat.
- B. What did the authors find?
Mostly positive.
- 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; note that included UPF examples (sweets, chocolate) are allowed in the system.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable