Objective To evaluate the existing meta-analytic evidence of associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods, as defined by the Nova food classification system, and adverse health outcomes. Design Systematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses. Data sources MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manual searches of reference lists from 2009 to June 2023. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross sectional study designs. To evaluate the credibility of evidence, pre-specified evidence classification criteria were applied, graded as convincing (“class I”), highly suggestive (“class II”), suggestive (“class III”), weak (“class IV”), or no evidence (“class V”). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework, categorised as “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “very low” quality. Results The search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response associations and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9 888 373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low). Of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (class V). Overall, using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as low quality, with 19 rated as very low quality and four rated as moderate quality. Conclusions Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes. These findings provide a rationale to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of using population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. They also inform and provide support for urgent mechanistic research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023412732.

Since previous meta-analyses, which were limited only to depression and by a small number of studies available for inclusion at the time of publication, several additional studies have been published assessing the link between ultra-processed food consumption and depression as well as other mental disorders. We aimed to build on previously conducted reviews to synthesise and meta-analyse the contemporary evidence base and clarify the associations between the consumption of ultra-processed food and mental disorders. A total of 17 observational studies were included (n = 385,541); 15 cross-sectional and 2 prospective. Greater ultra-processed food consumption was cross-sectionally associated with increased odds of depressive and anxiety symptoms, both when these outcomes were assessed together (common mental disorder symptoms odds ratio: 1.53, 95%CI 1.43 to 1.63) as well as separately (depressive symptoms odds ratio: 1.44, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.82; and, anxiety symptoms odds ratio: 1.48, 95%CI 1.37 to 1.59). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of prospective studies demonstrated that greater ultra-processed food intake was associated with increased risk of subsequent depression (hazard ratio: 1.22, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.28). While we found evidence for associations between ultra-processed food consumption and adverse mental health, further rigorously designed prospective and experimental studies are needed to better understand causal pathways.

To synthesise the literature on the efficacy of primary motor cortex anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (M1-a-tDCS), as a standalone or priming technique, for pain reduction in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and CENTRAL according to PRISMA statement. Fourteen studies involving 740 people with KOA were included. In the meta-analysis, six studies compared a-tDCS alone with sham stimulation, and five studies compared a-tDCS combined with other methods with sham stimulation. We found positive effect of a-tDCS alone on pain in KOA (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.52; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.25; P=0.001; I2 = 69%). Further, a-tDCS with other treatments showed positive effect (SMD -1.23; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.88; P<0.001; I2 = 48%) on pain in people with KOA. This evidence showed low certainty due to a high risk of bias and imprecision. A-tDCS could be considered as standalone and an adjunct treatment for pain reduction in people with KOA. Future randomised studies should address quality issues, including small sample size, to enhance the overall certainty of the findings. A-tDCS can be used as a standalone and adjunct treatment for KOA. PROSPERO number CRD42021255114.

Background: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) collects and calculates risk-outcome data for modifiable lifestyle exposures (eg, dietary intake) and physical health outcomes (eg, cancers). These estimates form a critical digital resource tool, the GBD VizHub data visualization tool, for governments and policy makers to guide local, regional, and global health decisions. Despite evidence showing the contributions of lifestyle exposures to common mental disorders (CMDs), such as depression and anxiety, GBD does not currently generate these lifestyle exposure-mental disorder outcome pairings. This gap is due to a lack of uniformly collected and analyzed data about these exposures as they relate to CMDs. Such data are required to quantify whether, and to what degree, the global burden of CMDs could be reduced by targeting lifestyle factors at regional and global levels. We have established the Global burden of disease Lifestyle And mental Disorder (GLAD) Taskforce to address this gap. Objective: This study aims to generate the necessary estimates to afford the inclusion of lifestyle exposures as risk factors for CMDs in the GBD study and the GBD digital visualization tools, initially focusing on the relationship between dietary intake and CMDs. Methods: The GLAD project is a multicenter, collaborative effort to integrate lifestyle exposures as risk factors for CMDs in the GBD study. To achieve this aim, global epidemiological studies will be recruited to conduct harmonized data analyses estimating the risk, odds, or hazards of lifestyle exposures with CMD outcomes. Initially, these models will focus on the relationship between dietary intake, as defined by the GBD, and anxiety and depression. Results: As of August 2024, 18 longitudinal cohort studies from 9 countries (Australia: n=4; Brazil: n=1; France: n=1; Italy: n=3; The Netherlands: n=3; New Zealand: n=1; South Africa: n=1; Spain: n=1; and United Kingdom: n=3) have agreed to participate in the GLAD project. Conclusions: Our comprehensive, collaborative approach allows for the concurrent execution of a harmonized statistical analysis protocol across multiple, internationally renowned epidemiological cohorts. These results will be used to inform the GBD study and incorporate lifestyle risk factors for CMD in the GBD digital platform. Consequently, given the worldwide influence of the GBD study, findings from the GLAD project can offer valuable insights to policy makers worldwide around lifestyle-based mental health care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/65576

Objective: To evaluate the existing meta-analytic evidence of associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods, as defined by the Nova food classification system, and adverse health outcomes. Design: Systematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manually searching reference lists from 2009 to June 2023. Inclusion Criteria: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross-sectional study designs that evaluated the associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods and adverse health outcomes in humans across the lifespan. Results: The search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9,888,373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health outcome domains spanning cardiometabolic, gastrointestinal, and respiratory conditions, cancer, mental health, and mortality. Based on a pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (Class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease-related mortality (RR: 1.50; 95%CIs: 1.37 to 1.63), type two diabetes (dose-response RR: 1.12; 95%CIs: 1.11 to 1.13), and depressive outcomes (HR: 1.21; 95%CIs: 1.16 to 1.28), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (OR: 1.48; 95%CIs: 1.37 to 1.59) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (OR: 1.53; 95%CIs: 1.43 to 1.63). Highly suggestive (Class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all-cause mortality (RR: 1.21; 95%CIs: 1.15 to 1.27), heart disease-related mortality (dose-response HR: 1.66; 95%CIs: 1.51 to 1.84), and type two diabetes (OR: 1.40; 95%CIs: 1.23 to 1.59), together with higher risks of prevalent obesity (OR: 1.55; 95%CIs: 1.36 to 1.77), adverse sleep-related outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95%CIs: 1.24 to 1.60), and wheezing (RR: 1.40; 95%CIs: 1.27 to 1.55). Out of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (Class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (Class V). Using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as "Low" quality, with 19 rated as "Very Low” and four rated as "Moderate" quality. Conclusions: Higher exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a greater risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes. These findings provide a rationale to evaluate the effectiveness of using population-based measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023412732.