Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30216697›Full record

Trial reportMaternal & child nutrition2019

Contribution of commercial infant products and fortified staple foods to nutrient intake at ages 6, 12, and 18 months in a cohort of children from a low socio-economic community in South Africa.

Eloïse Swanepoel, Lize Havemann-Nel, Marinel Rothman, Ria Laubscher, Tonderayi M Matsungo, Cornelius M Smuts, Mieke Faber

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Maternal & child nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Optimization ofHeliyon · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Eloïse SwanepoelCentre of Excellence for Nutrition (CEN), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2964-251X
Lize Havemann-NelCentre of Excellence for Nutrition (CEN), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
Marinel RothmanCentre of Excellence for Nutrition (CEN), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
Ria LaubscherBiostatistics Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa.
Tonderayi M MatsungoCentre of Excellence for Nutrition (CEN), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
Cornelius M SmutsCentre of Excellence for Nutrition (CEN), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4829-0054
Mieke FaberCentre of Excellence for Nutrition (CEN), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-8878-254X

Funding

Global Alliance for International Nutrition (GAIN) with co-funders DSM and UnileverSouth African Sugar Association 239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fortification of two staple foods, maize meal and wheat flour (bread), is mandatory, and commercial infant products are widely available in South Africa. Using a 24-hr recall, we determined the contribution of these foods towards nutrient intakes at ages 6 (n = 715), 12 (n = 446), and 18 (n = 213) months in a cohort of children in a peri-urban community, North West province. On the day of recall, commercial infant products were consumed by 83% of children at 6 months, 46% at 12 months, and 15% at 18 months; fortified staples were consumed by 23%, 81%, and 96%, respectively. For consumers thereof, commercial infant products contributed 33% energy and 94% iron intakes at 6 months and 27% energy and 56% iron intakes at 12 months; nutrient densities of the complementary diet was higher than for nonconsumers for most micronutrients. For consumers of fortified staples, energy contribution thereof was 11% at 6 months versus 29% at 18 months; at 18 months, fortified staples contributed >30% of iron, zinc, vitamin A, thiamine, niacin, vitamin B6, and folate; at 12 months, nutrient densities of the complementary diet were higher for zinc, folate, and vitamin B6 but lower for calcium, iron, vitamin A, niacin, and vitamin C than nonconsumers. At ages 12 and 18 months, ~75% of children had low calcium intakes. At 12 months, 51.4% of consumers versus 25.0% (P = 0.005) of nonconsumers of fortified staples had adequate intakes (>EAR) for all eight fortificant nutrients. However, despite fortification, nutrient gaps remain.

Indexed as

Nutritive ValuePovertyCohort StudiesDietFemaleFood, FortifiedHumansInfantInfant FoodInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMaleSocioeconomic FactorsSouth Africacommercial infant productscomplementary foodsdietary intake assessmentfortified staplesinfants and child nutritionSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID30216697
PMCPMC7198934

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.