ArticleMaternal and child health journal2016
Comparing Weight-for-Length Status of Young Children in Two Infant Feeding Programs.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Infant growth outcomes from birth to 12 months of age: findings from the Delta Healthy Sprouts randomized comparative impact trial.Obesity science & practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives A cross-sectional study comparing weight-for-length status of children 6-24 months old who participated in Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) or Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Methods Secondary analysis of NFP (n = 44,980) and WIC (n = 31,294) national datasets was conducted to evaluate infant and toddler growth trajectories. Weight-for-length status was calculated at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months based on World Health Organization criteria. Demographics and breastfeeding rates were also evaluated. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for high weight-for-length (≥97.7 percentile) at each time point. Results At 6 months, approximately 10 % of WIC and NFP children were classified as high weight-for-length. High weight-for-length rates increased for both groups similarly until 24 months. At 24 months, NFP children had significantly lower rates of excess weight (P = 0.03) than WIC children, 15.5 and 17.5 % respectively. At all time points, non-Hispanic white children had lower rates of high-weight for length than Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children. NFP infants were also found to have higher rates of ever being breastfed than WIC infants (P < 0.0001). Conclusions for Practice Infant and toddler populations served by NFP or WIC were found to be at increased risk for high weight-for-length. This study found NFP participation was associated with a small, but significant, protective impact on weight-for-length status at 24 months. Continued efforts need to be made in addressing weight-related racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities during early childhood.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.