Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27159235›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Research Priorities on the Relationship between Wasting and Stunting.

Chloe Angood, Tanya Khara, Carmel Dolan, James A Berkley, WaSt Technical Interest Group

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04209569 (One Nutrition in Complex Environments), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT04209569 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

One Nutrition in Complex Environments (ONCE), a Cluster-randomized Trial of Nutrition Education and Access to Simple Supportive Technologies in Improving Agricultural Practices and Water Quality Management

TypeinterventionalSponsorTufts UniversityRan2020 to 2022Enrolled1,834ConditionsNutrition Poor, Aflatoxins Toxicity, Water-Related DiseasesArmsNutrition Impact and Positive Practice Circle (NIPP)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chloe AngoodENN, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7430-3117
Tanya KharaENN, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Carmel DolanENN, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
James A BerkleyKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
WaSt Technical Interest Group
Euclid Network · GBKenya Medical Research Institute · KE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M007367/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWasting and stunting are global public health problems that frequently co-exist. However, they are usually separated in terms of policy, guidance, programming and financing. Though both wasting and stunting are manifestations of undernutrition caused by disease and poor diet, there are critical gaps in our understanding of the physiological relationship between them, and how interventions for one may affect the other. The aim of this exercise was to establish research priorities in the relationships between wasting and stunting to guide future research investments. METHODS AND

findingsWe used the CHNRI (Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) methodology for setting research priorities in health. We utilised a group of experts in nutrition, growth and child health to prioritise 30 research questions against three criteria (answerability, usefulness and impact) using an online survey. Eighteen of 25 (72%) experts took part and prioritised research directly related to programming, particularly at the public health level. The highest-rated questions were: "Can interventions outside of the 1000 days, e.g. pre-school, school age and adolescence, lead to catch-up in height and in other developmental markers?"; "What timely interventions work to mitigate seasonal peaks in both wasting and stunting?"; and "What is the optimal formulation of ready-to-use foods to promote optimal ponderal growth and also support linear growth during and after recovery from severe acute malnutrition?" There was a high level of agreement between experts, particularly for the highest ranking questions.

conclusionsIncreased commitment to rigorous evaluations of treatment and prevention interventions at the public health level, addressing questions of the timing of intervention, and the extent to which impacts for both wasting and stunting can be achieved, is needed to inform global efforts to tackle undernutrition and its consequences.

Indexed as

ResearchAdolescentCachexiaChildChild Nutrition DisordersFemaleGrowth DisordersHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID27159235
PMCPMC4861337
OpenAlexW2346441924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.