Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26620159›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2016

Communicating hunger and satiation in the first 2 years of life: a systematic review.

Janet McNally, Siobhan Hugh-Jones, Samantha Caton, Carel Vereijken, Hugo Weenen, Marion Hetherington

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Parents+: An Early Behavioral Intervention as a Pathway for Parent-Partnered Care.Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Janet McNallyInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Siobhan Hugh-JonesInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Samantha CatonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Carel VereijkenDanone Nutricia Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hugo WeenenDanone Nutricia Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Marion HetheringtonInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responsive feeding has been identified as important in preventing overconsumption by infants. However, this is predicated on an assumption that parents recognise and respond to infant feeding cues. Despite this, relatively little is understood about how infants engage parental feeding responses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify what is known about infant communication of hunger and satiation and what issues impact on the expression and perception of these states. A search of Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Science Direct and Maternal and Infant care produced 27 papers. Eligibility criteria included peer reviewed qualitative and/or quantitative publications on feeding behaviours, hunger, and satiation/satiety cues of typically developing children in the first 2 years of life. Papers published between 1966 and 2013 were included in the review. The review revealed that feeding cues and behaviours are shaped by numerous issues, such as infants' physical attributes, individual psychological factors and environmental factors. Meanwhile, infant characteristics, external cues and mothers' own characteristics affect how feeding cues are perceived. The existing literature provides insights into many aspects of hunger and satiation in infancy; however, there are significant gaps in our knowledge. There is a lack of validated tools for measuring hunger and satiation, a need to understand how different infant characteristics impact on feeding behaviour and a need to extricate the respective contributions of infant and maternal characteristics to perceptions of hunger and satiation. Further research is also recommended to differentiate between feeding driven by liking and that driven by hunger.

Indexed as

CommunicationHungerInfant BehaviorSatiationChild, PreschoolFeeding BehaviorFood PreferencesHumansInfantInfant FormulaInfant, NewbornMaternal BehaviorMEDLINEMovementSucking Behaviorbehaviourcommunicationcuehungerinfant feedingsatiation

Identifiers

PMID26620159
PMCPMC4991302

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.