Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38190356›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Critical research gaps in treating growth faltering in infants under 6 months: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cecília Tomori, Deborah L O'Connor, Mija Ververs, Dania Orta-Aleman, Katerina Paone, Chakra Budhathoki, Rafael Pérez-Escamilla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Cecília TomoriJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4235-1821
Deborah L O'ConnorTemerty Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mija VerversDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Dania Orta-AlemanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Katerina PaoneDepartment of Social and Behavioral Health, Yale University School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0698-5684
Chakra BudhathokiJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Rafael Pérez-EscamillaDepartment of Social and Behavioral Health, Yale University School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2020, 149.2 million children worldwide under 5 years suffered from stunting, and 45.4 million experienced wasting. Many infants are born already stunted, while others are at high risk for growth faltering early after birth. Growth faltering is linked to transgenerational impacts of poverty and marginalization. Few interventions address growth faltering in infants under 6 months, despite a likely increasing prevalence due to the negative global economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Breastfeeding is a critical intervention to alleviate malnutrition and improve child health outcomes, but rarely receives adequate attention in growth faltering interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to identify and evaluate interventions addressing growth faltering among infants under 6 months that employed supplemental milks. The review was carried out following guidelines from the USA National Academy of Medicine. A total of 10,405 references were identified, and after deduplication 7390 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, 227 were assessed for full text eligibility and relevance. Two randomized controlled trials were ultimately included, which differed in inclusion criteria and methodology and had few shared outcomes. Both studies had small sample sizes, high attrition and high risk of bias. A Bangladeshi study (n = 153) found significantly higher rates of weight gain for F-100 and diluted F-100 (DF-100) compared with infant formula (IF), while a DRC trial (n = 146) did not find statistically significant differences in rate of weight gain for DF-100 compared with IF offered in the context of broader lactation and relactation support. The meta-analysis of rate of weight gain showed no statistical difference and some evidence of moderate heterogeneity. Few interventions address growth faltering among infants under 6 months. These studies have limited generalizability and have not comprehensively supported lactation. Greater investment is necessary to accelerate research that addresses growth faltering following a new research framework that calls for comprehensive lactation support.

Identifiers

PMID38190356
PMCPMC10773941

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.