Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-SUG-109 standard review

Sugary drinks and juice linked to gout

Important food sources of fructose-containing sugars and incident gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Overview

Ayoub-Charette S et al.. BMJ Open 2019 · PMID 31061018 · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024171

Pooled data from three large cohorts linked high sugary-drink intake with about twice the gout risk; fruit juice was also linked, but whole fruit was not.

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

Original publication

Plain-language summary

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

Assess which sugar sources are linked to gout.

How was the study done?

Pooled three prospective cohorts.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

154,289 participants, 1761 gout cases.

What was actually found?

Sugary drinks RR 2.08; juice 1.77; fruit no association.

How large was the observed effect?

RR 2.08 (1.40-3.08).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

People at risk of gout benefit from limiting sugary drinks and juices.

What are the study's limitations?

Only three studies, mostly US professionals.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports 'double the risk' for sugary drinks; shows juice is not exempt.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Transferability moderate.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot prove causation.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Ayoub-Charette S et al.
Journal
BMJ Open
Year
2019
Identifier
PMID 31061018 DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024171
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Funded by CIHR (PubMed grant list); author disclosures not reviewed

2. Research question

Are food sources of fructose-containing sugars (SSB, fruit juice, fruit) associated with incident gout?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohorts (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane to September 2017), GRADE
Population

Adults in prospective cohorts (mostly US health professionals)

Country

USA

Period

to 13 September 2017

Sample size

3 studies; 154,289 participants; 1761 gout cases

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Prospective cohorts on food sources of sugar and gout or hyperuricaemia

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

SSB, fruit juice, fruit (highest vs lowest)

Comparator

Lowest intake

Endpoints

Incident gout

Statistical methods

Random-effects pooling of log RR; GRADE

5. Actual results

Results

SSB RR 2.08 (95% CI 1.40-3.08; moderate certainty); fruit juice RR 1.77 (1.20-2.61; very low certainty); fruit RR 0.85 (0.63-1.14; very low certainty).

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Adverse association of SSB and fruit juice intake with incident gout, which does not appear to extend to fruit.

6. Strengths

  • GRADE assessment
  • Source-specific analysis

7. Weaknesses

  • Only three cohorts
  • Overlap with Choi 2008 (A-SOD-06)
  • Mostly white US health professionals

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

Few studies; overlapping populations.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

CI log-symmetric (stats/C-SOD-05_gout.py). Includes the Choi 2008 cohort, so it is not independent confirmation of A-SOD-06.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports C-SOD-05 ('double' is close to the pooled RR 2.08) and contradicts C-SUG-06 (fruit juice also associated with gout).

11. Independent contrary findings

Lu 2025 (not added) found smaller pooled ORs across 22 observational studies (SSB-gout OR 1.21).

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Moderate; US populations.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Supports an SSB-gout association of roughly double at the highest intakes in these cohorts, and a similar but less certain signal for juice.

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

14. Open questions

Data from women, non-white and non-US populations.

15. Linked fact checks