BACKGROUND Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the association between ultra -processed foods (UPFs) and the risk of hypertension in various populations. However, the quality of the evidence remains unclear. This umbrella review was thus conducted to fill this gap. METHODS We searched for SRs with and without meta -analyses comparing high UPF versus low UPF consumption on the risk of hypertension in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to August 2022. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022352934). The A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR -2) tool and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta -analysis 2009 (PRISMA 2009) statement were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs. Stata 15/SE was used to reanalyse the data using the random -effects model, and the risk of bias of observational studies from included SRs was reassessed using the Newcastle -Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. The certainty of the evidence body was assessed using the GRADE recommendation. RESULTS Seven SRs were included in the umbrella review. Among them, nine observational studies (5 cross-sectional and 4 cohort studies), whose available data were resynthesised using meta -analysis. The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were relatively poor. The meta -analysis results revealed suggestive evidence of an association between high UPF consumption and the incidence of hypertension (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% con fidence interval: 1.11 to 1.37, p < 0.001, 95% prediction interval: 0.92 to 1.64, critically low certainty) compared to low UPF consumption. CONCLUSION High UPF consumption is associated with an increased risk of hypertension. However, well-conducted SRs, including high -quality prospective cohort studies, are needed to further verify these findings.

Consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is associated with various adverse health outcomes, which significantly influence the global disease burden. This umbrella review aimed to fill the knowledge gap and guide public health practices by summarizing the association between UPFs and multiple health outcomes. A total of four databases were systematically searched from inception to December 2022, and 14 eligible systematic re-views (SRs) with meta-analyses (MAs) were identified. The SRs were published in 10 journals from 2020 to 2023, with 54,147-5,750,133 participants and 5-61 studies. The overall corrected covered area (CCA) was corresponded to a slight overlap. The results showed that an increased UPFs consumption is associated with multiple health outcomes (e.g., obesity, diabetes, hypertension, mortality). Only two SRs were "Moderate" regarding the overall methodological quality, while the other twelve were "Low" or "Critically low". Therefore, well-conducted SRs with high-quality prospective cohorts with a particular focus on special populations are needed to verify these findings further.

A dramatic shift in the global food system is occurring with the rapid growth of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumption, which poses potentially serious health risks. Systematic review (SR) method has been used to summarise the association between UPF consumption and multiple health outcomes; however, a suboptimal-quality SR may mislead the decision-making in clinical practices and health policies. Therefore, a methodological review was conducted to identify the areas that can be improved regarding the risk of bias and reporting quality of relevant SRs. Systematic searches to collect SRs with meta-analyses of UPFs were performed using four databases from their inception to April 14, 2023. The risk of bias and reporting quality were evaluated using ROBIS and PRISMA 2020, respectively. The key characteristics of the included SRs were summarised descriptively. Excel 2019 and R 4.2.3 were used to analyse the data and draw graphs. Finally, 16 relevant SRs written in English and published between 2020 and 2023 in 12 academic journals were included. Only one SR was rated as low risk of bias, and the others were rated as higher risk of bias mainly because the risk of bias in the original studies was not explicitly addressed when synthesising the evidence. The reporting was required to be advanced significantly, involving amendments of registration and protocol, data and analytic code statement, and lists of excluded studies with justifications. The reviews' results could improve the quality, strengthen future relevant SRs' robustness, and further underpin the evidence base for supporting clinical decisions and health policies.

Background: Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size. Results: A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating. Conclusions: The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objective: The available evidence on selenium supplementation in the treatment of autoimmune thyroiditis (AIT) was inconclusive. This research serves to assess the effects of selenium supplementation in the treatment of AIT. Methods: Online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The information on the randomized controlled trials of the included studies was extracted and synthesized. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 6 systematic reviews with 75 RCTs were included. Only one study was rated as high quality. The meta-analysis showed that in the levothyroxine (LT4)-treated population, thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPO-Ab) levels decreased significantly in the selenium group at 3 months (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: [-0.89, -0.17], p < 0.05, very low certainty) and 6 months (SMD = -1.95, 95% CI: [-3.17, -0.74], p < 0.05, very low certainty) and that thyroglobulin antibody (Tg-Ab) levels were not decreased. In the non-LT4-treated population, TPO-Ab levels decreased significantly in the selenium group at 3 and 6 months and did not decrease at 12 months. Tg-Ab levels decreased significantly in the selenium group at 3 and 6 months and did not decrease at 12 months. The adverse effects reported in the selenium group were not significantly different from those in the control group, and the certainty of evidence was low. Conclusion: Although selenium supplementation might reduce TPO-Ab levels at 3 and 6 months and Tg-Ab levels at 3 and 6 months in the non-LT4-treated population, this was based on a low certainty of evidence.

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.