ReviewJournal of global health2022
Maternal and child nutrition in the Lives Saved Tool: Results of a recent update.
Review in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using the Lives Saved Tool to inform global nutrition advocacy.Journal of global health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) is a mathematical modelling tool for estimating the survival, health, and nutritional impacts of scaling intervention coverage in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Various nutrition interventions are included in LiST and are regularly (and independently) reviewed and updated as new data emerge. This manuscript describes our latest in-depth review of nutrition evidence, focusing on intervention efficacy, appropriate population-affected fractions, and new interventions for potential inclusion in the LiST model. Methods: An external advisory group (EAG) was assembled to review evidence from systematic reviews on intervention-outcome (I-O) pairs for women and children under five years of age. GRADE quality was assigned to each pair based on a LiST-specific checklist to facilitate consistent decisions during the consideration. For existing interventions with new information, the EAG was asked to recommend whether to update the default efficacy values and population-affected fractions. For the new interventions, the EAG decided whether there was sufficient evidence of benefit, and in affirmative cases, information on the efficacy and affected fraction values that could be used. Decisions were based on expert group consensus. Results: Overall, the group reviewed 53 nutrition-related I-O pairs, including 25 existing and 28 new ones. Efficacy and population-affected fractions were updated for seven I-O pairs; three pairs were updated for efficacy estimates only, three were updated for population-affected fractions only; and nine new I-O pairs were added to the model, bringing the total of nutrition-related I-O pairs to 34. Included in the new I-O pairs were two new nutrition interventions added to LIST: zinc fortification and neonatal vitamin A supplementation. Conclusions: For modelling tools like LiST to be useful, it is crucial to update interventions, efficacy and population-affected fractions as new evidence becomes available. The present updates will enable LiST users to better estimate the potential health, nutrition, and survival benefits of investing in nutrition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.