Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23782554›Full record

Trial reportMaternal & child nutrition2015

Comparison of the effectiveness of a milk-free soy-maize-sorghum-based ready-to-use therapeutic food to standard ready-to-use therapeutic food with 25% milk in nutrition management of severely acutely malnourished Zambian children: an equivalence non-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial.

Abel H Irena, Paluku Bahwere, Victor O Owino, ElHadji I Diop, Max O Bachmann, Clara Mbwili-Muleya, Filippo Dibari, Kate Sadler, Steve Collins

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Maternal & child nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Reply to I Potani et al.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Abel H IrenaValid International, Oxford, UK.
Paluku BahwereValid International, Oxford, UK.
Victor O OwinoValid Nutrition, Nairobi, Kenya.
ElHadji I DiopValid International, Oxford, UK.
Max O BachmannUniversity of East Anglia, East Anglia, UK.
Clara Mbwili-MuleyaLusaka District Health Management Team, Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Filippo DibariValid International, Oxford, UK.
Kate SadlerValid International, Oxford, UK.
Steve CollinsValid International, Oxford, UK.
Valid International (United Kingdom) · GBMinistry of Health · ZMUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition using ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) has revolutionised the treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM). However, 25% milk content in standard peanut-based RUTF (P-RUTF) makes it too expensive. The effectiveness of milk-free RUTF has not been reported hitherto. This non-blinded, parallel group, cluster randomised, controlled, equivalence trial that compares the effectiveness of a milk-free soy-maize-sorghum-based RUTF (SMS-RUTF) with P-RUTF in treatment of children with SAM, closes the gap. A statistician randomly assigned health centres (HC) either to the SMS-RUTF (n = 12; 824 enrolled) or P-RUTF (n = 12; 1103 enrolled) arms. All SAM children admitted at the participating HCs were enrolled. All the outcomes were measured at individual level. Recovery rate was the primary outcome. The recovery rates for SMS-RUTF and P-RUTF were 53.3% and 60.8% for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and 77.9% and 81.8% for per protocol (PP) analyses, respectively. The corresponding adjusted risk difference (ARD) and 95% confidence interval, were -7.6% (-14.9, 0.6%) and -3.5% (-9,6., 2.7%) for ITT (P = 0.034) and PP analyses (P = 0.257), respectively. An unanticipated interaction (interaction P < 0.001 for ITT analyses and 0.0683 for PP analyses) between the study arm and age group was observed. The ARDs were -10.0 (-17.7 to -2.3)% for ITT (P = 0.013) and -4.7 (-10.0 to 0.7) for PP (P = 0.083) analyses for the <24 months age group and 2.1 (-10.3,14.6)% for ITT (P = 0.726) and -0.6 (-16.1, 14.5) for PP (P = 0.939) for the ≥24 months age group. In conclusion, the study did not confirm our hypothesis of equivalence between SMS-RUTF and P-RUTF in SAM management.

Indexed as

AnimalsArachisChild, PreschoolCluster AnalysisFast FoodsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantInfant FormulaMaleMilkMilk SubstitutesSevere Acute MalnutritionSocioeconomic FactorsSorghumrecovery rateRUTFsevere acute malnutritionZambia

Identifiers

PMID23782554
PMCPMC6860345
OpenAlexW1944385299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.