Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-DRY-09 standard review

78,529 young people: dairy of all kinds linked to acne

Dairy Intake and Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 78,529 Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults.

Overview

Juhl CR et al.. Nutrients 2018 · PMID 30096883 · DOI 10.3390/nu10081049

Any dairy OR 1.25; cheese 1.22; yogurt 1.36.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Dairy and acne.

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

78,529 young people.

What was actually found?

All dairy types associated.

How large was the observed effect?

OR 1.25 (1.15-1.36).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Possible link; cheese included.

What are the study's limitations?

Publication bias.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports association; no milk-vs-cheese split.

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
Juhl CR et al.
Journal
Nutrients
Year
2018
Identifier
PMID 30096883 DOI 10.3390/nu10081049
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

G.B.E.J. has received honoraria from AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, and UCB for participation on advisory boards, and grants from Abbvie, Actelion, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, and Regeneron for participation as an investigator, and received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and MSD. He has furthermore received unrestricted research grants from AbbVie and Leo Pharma. He has received travel grants from AbbVie, Celgene, Desitin, and Novartis. GBEJ’s sponsors were not involved in any parts of this article (design, conduct, collection, management, analysis, interpretation, preparation, approval, review, decision to submit). H.K.M.B. has received a grant from the Danish Dairy Research Foundation. None of the funding agencies had any role in the design, analysis, or writing of this article.

2. Research question

Dairy intake and acne in ages 7-30.

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Population

Children, adolescents, young adults

Country

Multinational

Period

Search to 11 Dec 2017

Sample size

14 studies; 78,529 (23,046 cases)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Observational studies, ages 7-30.

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Dairy, milk types, cheese, yogurt

Comparator

No intake/less than weekly

Endpoints

Acne.

Statistical methods

Random effects; publication bias tests.

5. Actual results

Results

Any dairy OR 1.25 (1.15-1.36); any milk 1.28 (1.13-1.44); low-fat/skim 1.32 (1.16-1.52); cheese 1.22 (1.00-1.50); yogurt 1.36 (1.05-1.77); >=2 glasses/day 1.43 (1.09-1.88). Publication bias (p=0.0047); adjusted results attenuated.

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Any dairy associated with increased OR for acne; interpret with caution due to heterogeneity and bias.

6. Strengths

  • Large sample
  • Bias assessment

7. Weaknesses

  • Publication bias
  • Unadjusted estimates

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

Publication bias found.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Modest ORs, attenuated after adjustment.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supporting C-DRY-08; shows cheese also associated.

11. Independent contrary findings

I-DRY-08 (no yogurt/cheese association).

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Includes European data (Danish authors).

13. Overall methodological judgement

Consistent but biased observational evidence.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultshigh
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

RCTs.

15. Linked fact checks