Evidence mapPaperPMID 37238342Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Are Complementary Feeding Practices Aligned with Current Recommendations? A Narrative Review.

Audrey Nantel, Véronique Gingras

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Audrey NantelDepartment of Nutrition, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1A8, Canada.ORCID 0009-0008-3217-145X
Véronique GingrasDepartment of Nutrition, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1A8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4918-7534
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complementary feeding introduction period (introduction of solid foods alongside breastmilk or formula) is defining in children's health; however, it appears that many parents do not follow complementary feeding guidelines. Our aim was to describe current parental feeding practices during complementary feeding in relation to current recommendations and explore determinants of adherence to guidelines. We included any relevant studies published within the last decade in French or English and summarized findings by recommendation category. The timing of complementary food introduction varied widely across and within continents (earlier in North America and often delayed in Asia). The introduction of allergenic foods tended to be delayed globally. Although some parents now begin complementary feeding with solid foods (i.e., baby-led weaning), delayed introduction of lumpy textures was still prevalent in the United States and in Europe. The consumption of iron-rich foods was predominantly low in Africa. Added sugars were globally introduced early, especially in America. Evidence for the prevalence of responsive feeding practices among parents is unclear due to the small number of studies. Determinants of complementary feeding practices included parental characteristics, such as age, education, socio-economic status, and race/ethnicity. Interventions aiming to increase adherence to complementary feeding guidelines must account for parental characteristics.

Indexed as

baby-led weaningcomplementary feedingdeterminantsfood choicesinfancyparental feeding practicessolid foodtiming

Identifiers

PMID37238342
PMCPMC10217166
OpenAlexW4367298447

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.