18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Health effects of drinking 100% juice: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Context

          Low fruit and vegetable intakes are major modifiable determinants of disease. One hundred percent juice may facilitate intake and deliver essential nutrients and bioactive compounds. However, the position of 100% juice in healthy eating guidelines remains controversial due to its lower dietary fiber and higher free-sugar contents compared with whole fruits and vegetables.

          Objective

          To conduct an umbrella review of systematic literature reviews with meta-analyses (MAs) to summarize the health benefits of drinking 100% fruit and/or vegetable juice.

          Data Sources

          Four databases (Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL) were systematically searched for MAs of 100% juice and any health outcomes.

          Data Analysis

          Screening, quality, risk of bias, and content overlap tools were applied, and extracted data were narratively synthesized. No eligible studies for vegetable juice were found. Fifteen systematic literature reviews (51 primary MAs, 6 dose–response, and 87 subanalyses; 50–1200 mL/day; hours to years of duration) were included. Ten MAs (19.6%) reported health benefits (4 for blood pressure, 2 for vascular function, 3 for inflammation, 1 for stroke mortality), 3 MAs (5.9%) reported adverse risks (1 each for cardiovascular disease mortality, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes risk), while most (74.5%) reported no effect (blood lipids, body composition, liver function, metabolic health, cancers, and inflammation). Risks were limited to cohort studies and benefits were found in both cohort and intervention studies.

          Conclusion

          The findings collate evidence showing some potential health benefits associated with 100% juice consumption, with fewer potential risks. The balance of evidence does not support the exclusion of 100% juice from food-based guides to healthy eating, although caution may be warranted in certain groups or individuals, and the body of evidence is not yet conclusive.

          Systematic Review Registration

          PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022380588.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

          Summary Background Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. Methods GBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk–outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk–outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk–outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each age-sex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobacco smoking and lead exposure. The largest increases in risk exposure were for ambient particulate matter pollution, drug use, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body-mass index. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor globally for attributable deaths was high systolic blood pressure, which accounted for 10·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·51–12·1) deaths (19·2% [16·9–21·3] of all deaths in 2019), followed by tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 8·71 million (8·12–9·31) deaths (15·4% [14·6–16·2] of all deaths in 2019). The leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable DALYs globally in 2019 was child and maternal malnutrition, which largely affects health in the youngest age groups and accounted for 295 million (253–350) DALYs (11·6% [10·3–13·1] of all global DALYs that year). The risk factor burden varied considerably in 2019 between age groups and locations. Among children aged 0–9 years, the three leading detailed risk factors for attributable DALYs were all related to malnutrition. Iron deficiency was the leading risk factor for those aged 10–24 years, alcohol use for those aged 25–49 years, and high systolic blood pressure for those aged 50–74 years and 75 years and older. Interpretation Overall, the record for reducing exposure to harmful risks over the past three decades is poor. Success with reducing smoking and lead exposure through regulatory policy might point the way for a stronger role for public policy on other risks in addition to continued efforts to provide information on risk factor harm to the general public. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

            Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed

              Objective To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). Study Design and Setting We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. Results ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews (“reviews of reviews”), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. Conclusions ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Nutr Rev
                Nutr Rev
                nutritionreviews
                Nutrition Reviews
                Oxford University Press
                0029-6643
                1753-4887
                February 2025
                29 April 2024
                29 April 2024
                : 83
                : 2
                : e722-e735
                Affiliations
                FOODiQ Global , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Food Science & Human Nutrition, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Newcastle , Central Coast, New South Wales, Australia
                FOODiQ Global , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Food Science & Human Nutrition, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Newcastle , Central Coast, New South Wales, Australia
                FOODiQ Global , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                FOODiQ Global , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                FOODiQ Global , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                FOODiQ Global , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: F. Fayet-Moore, FOODiQ Global, Level 10, 20 Martin Place, Sydney, 2000, NSW, Australia. E-mail: Flavia@ 123456foodiq.global .
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8888-3789
                Article
                nuae036
                10.1093/nutrit/nuae036
                11723140
                38679915
                344da2ce-dd03-434e-86ec-f4024646ed02
                © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: Ausveg and Hort Innovation;
                Award ID: CT21004
                Categories
                Online only
                Umbrella Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00060

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                100%,fruit juice,chronic disease,dietary guidelines,nutritional epidemiology,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content232

                Most referenced authors4,107