Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-SOD-125 in-depth review

Soft drinks linked to slightly more kidney disease

Sweetened Beverage Intake and Incident Chronic Kidney Disease in the UK Biobank Study.

Overview

Heo GY et al.. JAMA Netw Open 2024 · PMID 38416492 · DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56885

Among 127,830 UK adults, drinking more than one sugary or diet soft drink a day was linked to 19-26% higher risk of chronic kidney disease.

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

Original publication

Plain-language summary

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

Examine sweetened drinks and kidney disease.

How was the study done?

UK Biobank cohort over about 10 years.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

127,830 adults; 4459 CKD cases.

What was actually found?

Sugary and diet drinks linked to more CKD; juice not.

How large was the observed effect?

HR 1.19 (SSB), 1.26 (ASB).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Replacing soft drinks with water may be good for kidneys.

What are the study's limitations?

Observational; not cola-specific.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports a modest link; does not prove damage.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

UK data.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot prove causation.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Heo GY et al.
Journal
JAMA Netw Open
Year
2024
Identifier
PMID 38416492 DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56885
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Not stated in abstract record

2. Research question

Are SSB, ASB and natural juice associated with incident CKD?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Prospective population-based cohort with substitution analysis
Population

UK Biobank participants without CKD

Country

United Kingdom

Period

Median follow-up 10.5 years

Sample size

127,830; 4459 incident CKD (3.5%)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

No CKD history; at least one dietary questionnaire

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

SSB, ASB, natural juice servings/day

Comparator

Non-consumers

Endpoints

Incident CKD

Statistical methods

Multivariable Cox; substitution models

5. Actual results

Results

SSB >1 serving/day AHR 1.19 (1.05-1.34). ASB >0-1/day AHR 1.10 (1.01-1.20); >1/day 1.26 (1.12-1.43). Natural juice not associated (>1/day HR 0.99, 0.87-1.11). Replacing SSB with ASB: HR 1.03 (0.96-1.10); replacing 1 serving/day SSB with juice 0.93 (0.87-0.97) or water 0.93 (0.88-0.99).

Absolute risks

Overall cumulative incidence 3.5%; illustrative excess ~0.7 percentage points over 10.5 years at HR 1.19 (approximation, stats/C-SOD-09_ckd.py)

Authors' conclusion

Lower consumption of SSB or ASB may reduce the risk of developing CKD.

6. Strengths

  • Large prospective cohort
  • Registry-based outcomes
  • Substitution analysis

7. Weaknesses

  • Observational
  • Cola not analysed separately
  • Diabetes and obesity as mediators/confounders

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

Residual confounding.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Modest relative associations; the similar ASB association argues against sugar alone and suggests confounding or other components.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports a modest association between soft drinks and CKD (C-SOD-09), replacing the single 1980s case-control study as the main evidence.

11. Independent contrary findings

Lo 2021 meta-analysis (I-SOD-126): pooled RR not significant.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

UK data.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Best prospective evidence; association modest; causation not established.

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

14. Open questions

Cola-specific and phosphoric-acid-specific effects.

15. Linked fact checks