ArticleNutrients2026
The Role of Hydrolysed Rice Formula in the Dietary Management of Infants with Cow's Milk Allergy: A UK Healthcare Perspective.
Article in Nutrients, 2026. 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.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cow's milk allergy (CMA) remains one of the most common food allergies in infancy, requiring the avoidance of cow's milk and its derivatives. Breast milk is the best source of nutrition for infants. For those infants with CMA whose mothers are unable to breastfeed or choose not to, extensively hydrolysed formulas (eHFs) are widely recommended as first-line milk substitutes, whereas hydrolysed rice formulas (HRFs) are increasingly recognised as a viable alternative. This concept paper provides a healthcare professional (HCP) perspective on HRF, drawing on expert consensus from two meetings convened in 2025. Discussions noted the long history of safe and effective HRF use in Europe, its nutritional adequacy, and the evolving international guidelines supporting HRF as an alternative first-line option. A key meeting outcome was the development of a practical decision tree to help UK clinicians decide when HRF should be the preferred choice. Key considerations for its use in non-breastfed infants include the following: parental/caregiver stress related to persistent symptoms; ongoing symptoms despite multiple interventions; cultural and lifestyle choices; religious dietary requirements; and specialists' recommendations. Secondary considerations highlighted by HCPs include the following: proven reactions whilst infants are breast-milk-fed together with parental request for formula; faltering growth; multiple symptoms; taste acceptance (older infants); and parental preference based on experience. The role of functional components, such as prebiotics and human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), was noted in regard to the emerging evidence of benefits to the microbiome and immune development. The experts emphasised the importance of engaging HCPs across all levels of CMA care and addressing challenges in translating current guidance into treatment practice. It was concluded that, overall, HRF represents a nutritionally complete, plant-based alternative that has been shown to be well tolerated (taste, symptoms) in clinical studies. It can be used to broaden therapeutic options for infants with CMA in the UK who are not exclusively fed breast milk.
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.