English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarized the studies that evaluated the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) intake on blood pressure among children and adolescents.    Methods  In a systematic search from PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to 20 April 2020, the observational studies that evaluated the association between sugar-sweetened beverages intake and hypertension, systolic or diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) were retrieved.    Results  A total of 14 studies with 93873 participants were included in the current meta-analysis. High SSB consumption was associated with 1.67 mmHg increase in SBP in children and adolescents (WMD: 1.67; CI 1.021–2.321; P &lt; 0.001). The difference in DBP was not significant (WMD: 0.313; CI −0.131– 0.757; P = 0.108). High SSB consumers were 1.36 times more likely to develop hypertension compared with low SSB consumers (OR: 1.365; CI 1.145–1.626; P = 0.001). In dose–response meta-analysis, no departure from linearity was observed between SSB intake and change in SBP (P-nonlinearity = 0.707) or DBP (P-nonlinearity = 0.180).    Conclusions  According to our finding, high SSB consumption increases SBP and hypertension in children and adolescents.

Sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of hypertension among children and adolescence: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis