Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28805177›Full record

Trial reportPublic health nutrition2017

Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and acceptability of a fish protein isolate in the nutrition of children under 36 months of age.

Theresa J Ochoa, Nelly Baiocchi, Gladys Valdiviezo, Vanessa Bullon, Miguel Campos, Alejandro Llanos-Cuentas

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. 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

6 authors.

Theresa J Ochoa1Instituto de Medicina Tropical 'Alexander von Humboldt',Department of Pediatrics,Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,Av. Honorio Delgado 430,San Martin de Porres,Lima 31,Peru.
Nelly Baiocchi1Instituto de Medicina Tropical 'Alexander von Humboldt',Department of Pediatrics,Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,Av. Honorio Delgado 430,San Martin de Porres,Lima 31,Peru.
Gladys Valdiviezo1Instituto de Medicina Tropical 'Alexander von Humboldt',Department of Pediatrics,Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,Av. Honorio Delgado 430,San Martin de Porres,Lima 31,Peru.
Vanessa Bullon1Instituto de Medicina Tropical 'Alexander von Humboldt',Department of Pediatrics,Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,Av. Honorio Delgado 430,San Martin de Porres,Lima 31,Peru.
Miguel Campos1Instituto de Medicina Tropical 'Alexander von Humboldt',Department of Pediatrics,Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,Av. Honorio Delgado 430,San Martin de Porres,Lima 31,Peru.
Alejandro Llanos-Cuentas1Instituto de Medicina Tropical 'Alexander von Humboldt',Department of Pediatrics,Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia,Av. Honorio Delgado 430,San Martin de Porres,Lima 31,Peru.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the effect of a fish protein isolate (FPi), administered over 6 months, on the growth of children aged 6-36 months, measured by Z-scores of height-for-age (HAZ) and weight-for-height (WHZ), compared with the standard meal without FPi; and to determine the safety and acceptability of FPi daily consumption.

designCluster-randomized community-based controlled trial. For 6 months, the centres received either FPi replacing 50 % of total proteins in the diet or standard protein. HAZ and WHZ were used to determine the effect on growth. Acceptability was determined by daily consumption, measured by weighing the servings before and after consumption.

settingDay care centres and community nutritional centres in northern Lima, Peru. SUBJECTS: Children (n 441) aged 6-36 months.

resultsFour centres were randomized to the intervention with FPi, five centres were randomized to the standard control diet. More than 36 900 meals were prepared and administered in a supervised manner. Both groups received the same amounts of energy and proteins daily (proteins about 12-15 % of total energy). Growth of children who received the FPi diet was similar to that of children with the standard diet. Consumption was similar in the FPi and control groups (70 v. 80 % of amount offered, respectively). The protein was safe and well tolerated. No adverse events were reported. However, the cost of the intervention with FPi was 20-40 % lower v. the standard diet with animal protein derived from beef, chicken, eggs or liver.

conclusionsThe FPi was well accepted and there was no significant difference in growth between both groups. FPi is a potential source of animal protein at lower cost.

Indexed as

DietDietary SupplementsBody HeightBody WeightChild Day Care CentersChild, PreschoolCluster AnalysisFemaleFish ProteinsFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMaleNutritional StatusPeruFish ProteinsChildrenDietary proteinFish protein isolateFood consumptionInfantMalnutrition

Identifiers

PMID28805177
PMCPMC10261284

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.