A call for methodological rigour: suspending systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on ultra-processed foods
Abstract
The proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SLRMAs) examining ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and health outcomes, e.g. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], has generated substantial scientific and public interest, yet these syntheses have amplified rather than resolved uncertainty. The fundamental challenge transcends individual study quality: a profound methodological incompatibility exists between conventional dietary assessment tools and the conceptual framework required to evaluate UPF consumption [ 4 ]. This mismatch creates systematic exposure misclassification that undermines the validity of individual studies and, consequently, any attempt to synthesize their findings [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].
Fields of Study & Subjects
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Nutrition
Genetics
and Disease
Publication details
- Journal / source
- European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 643–647
- Publication date
- 19 May 2026
- Language
- EN