Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30107409›Full record

ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2018

Perspective: Novel Commercial Packaging and Devices for Complementary Feeding.

Melissa Ann Theurich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Digital Marketing of Commercial Complementary Foods in Australia: An Analysis of Brand Messaging.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

1 author.

Melissa Ann TheurichLMU - Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Division of Metabolic and Nutritional Medicine, Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital, University of Munich Medical Center, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, so-called baby food pouches and other novel packaging and devices have been marketed for complementary feeding. To date, no experimental studies have been conducted to determine health and nutrition effects or the safety of baby food pouches and related feeding devices. Yet, these products hold the potential to fundamentally change the ways in which infants and children consume solid foods in infancy and early childhood. In this review, a selection of complementary feeding devices and their potential effects on breastfeeding, formula-feeding, safe and appropriate complementary feeding, and the timely transition to family foods are explored. Because manufacturers have innovated older designs of traditional feeding bottles and pacifiers for complementary feeding, perspectives on potential health effects and the safety of devices are drawn from research on feeding bottles and pacifiers. Recommendations include scaling up research on the safety, nutrition, and health impacts of commercial packaging and devices. In addition, manufacturers should ensure that devices conform to consumer product safety commission specifications and that instructions for use are in line with policies protecting pediatric dental health. Marketing of commercial devices and packaging should conform to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

Indexed as

Infant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaChild, PreschoolCooking and Eating UtensilsFemaleFood PackagingHumansInfantInfant FoodMaleMarketing

Identifiers

PMID30107409
PMCPMC6140442

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.