Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population…

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 31,639)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction
Published in
British Medical Journal, July 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmj.h3576
Pubmed ID
Authors

Imamura, Fumiaki, O'Connor, Laura, Ye, Zheng, Mursu, Jaakko, Hayashino, Yasuaki, Bhupathiraju, Shilpa N, Forouhi, Nita G, Fumiaki Imamura, Laura O’Connor, Zheng Ye, Jaakko Mursu, Yasuaki Hayashino, Shilpa N Bhupathiraju, Nita G Forouhi

Abstract

To examine the prospective associations between consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice with type 2 diabetes before and after adjustment for adiposity, and to estimate the population attributable fraction for type 2 diabetes from consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in the United States and United Kingdom. Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and Web of Knowledge for prospective studies of adults without diabetes, published until February 2014. The population attributable fraction was estimated in national surveys in the USA, 2009-10 (n=4729 representing 189.1 million adults without diabetes) and the UK, 2008-12 (n=1932 representing 44.7 million). Random effects meta-analysis and survey analysis for population attributable fraction associated with consumption of sugar sweetened beverages. Prespecified information was extracted from 17 cohorts (38 253 cases/10 126 754 person years). Higher consumption of sugar sweetened beverages was associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, by 18% per one serving/day (95% confidence interval 9% to 28%, I(2) for heterogeneity=89%) and 13% (6% to 21%, I(2)=79%) before and after adjustment for adiposity; for artificially sweetened beverages, 25% (18% to 33%, I(2)=70%) and 8% (2% to 15%, I(2)=64%); and for fruit juice, 5% (-1% to 11%, I(2)=58%) and 7% (1% to 14%, I(2)=51%). Potential sources of heterogeneity or bias were not evident for sugar sweetened beverages. For artificially sweetened beverages, publication bias and residual confounding were indicated. For fruit juice the finding was non-significant in studies ascertaining type 2 diabetes objectively (P for heterogeneity=0.008). Under specified assumptions for population attributable fraction, of 20.9 million events of type 2 diabetes predicted to occur over 10 years in the USA (absolute event rate 11.0%), 1.8 million would be attributable to consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (population attributable fraction 8.7%, 95% confidence interval 3.9% to 12.9%); and of 2.6 million events in the UK (absolute event rate 5.8%), 79 000 would be attributable to consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (population attributable fraction 3.6%, 1.7% to 5.6%). Habitual consumption of sugar sweetened beverages was associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, independently of adiposity. Although artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice also showd positive associations with incidence of type 2 diabetes, the findings were likely to involve bias. None the less, both artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice were unlikely to be healthy alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Under assumption of causality, consumption of sugar sweetened beverages over years may be related to a substantial number of cases of new onset diabetes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 983 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Spain 4 1%
United States 4 1%
Indonesia 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 276 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 20%
Student > Bachelor 54 18%
Researcher 51 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 16%
Other 22 7%
Other 70 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 156 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 9%
Social Sciences 20 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Other 41 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1048. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,239
of 7,436,043 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#48
of 31,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37
of 226,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#3
of 816 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,436,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 816 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.