4.3 Article

Associations of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soda with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

NEPHROLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 12, Pages 791-797

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nep.12343

Keywords

carbonated beverages; chronic kidney disease; soda; soft drink

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objectives: The risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients who regularly drink soda is controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the associations between consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soda and CKD. Methods: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until 30 June 2014. Studies that reported odds ratios or hazard ratios comparing the risk of CKD in patients consuming significant amounts of either sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened soda versus those who did not consume soda were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects, generic inverse variance method. Results: Five studies were included in our analysis of the association between consumption of sugar-sweetened soda and CKD. The pooled RR of CKD in patients consuming sugar-sweetened soda was 1.58 (95% CI 1.00-2.49). Four studies were selected to assess the association between consumption of artificially sweetened soda and CKD. The pooled RR of CKD in patients consuming artificially sweetened soda was 1.33 (95% CI 0.82-2.15). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates statistically significant increased risks of CKD in patients consuming sugar-sweetened soda, but not in patients consuming artificially sweetened soda. This finding suggests that sugar-sweetened soda consumption is associated with CKD and may impact clinical management and primary prevention of CKD in high-risk patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available