ArticlePublic health nutrition2019
Standard
Article in Public health nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations Between Complementary Feeding Approach, Dietary Intake, and Growth: A Secondary Analysis of the Maternal and Infant Nutrition Trial.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2026Trial
- Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- How Does Household Food Insecurity Impact Complementary Feeding, in High Income Countries, in a Cost-of-Living Crisis? A Systematic Scoping Review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Current Evidence on Nutrient Intakes and Infant Growth: A Narrative Review of Baby-Led Weaning vs. Conventional Weaning.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Complementary Feeding: Tradition, Innovation and Pitfalls.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Experiences and opinions towards baby-led weaning by healthcare professionals. A qualitative study.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- Are Complementary Feeding Practices Aligned with Current Recommendations? A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Estimated energy and nutrient intake for infants following baby-led and traditional weaning approaches.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2022Article
- Complementary Feeding Methods-A Review of the Benefits and Risks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Nutritional Implications of Baby-Led Weaning and Baby Food Pouches as Novel Methods of Infant Feeding: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare food and nutrient intakes of infants aged 6-12 months following a baby-led complementary feeding (BLCF) approach and a standard weaning (SW) approach.
designParticipants completed an online questionnaire consisting of sociodemographic questions, a 28 d FFQ and a 24 h dietary recall.
settingUK.
participantsInfants (n 134) aged 6-12 months (n 88, BLCF; n 46, SW).
resultsThere was no difference between weaning methods for the food groups 'fruits', 'vegetables', 'all fish', 'meat and fish', 'sugary' or 'starchy' foods. The SW group was offered 'fortified infant cereals' (P < 0·001), 'salty snacks' at 6-8 months (P = 0·03), 'dairy and dairy-based desserts' at 9-12 months (P = 0·04) and 'pre-prepared baby foods' at all ages (P < 0·001) more often than the BLCF group. The SW group was offered 'oily fish' at all ages (P < 0·001) and 6-8 months (P = 0·01) and 'processed meats' at all ages (P < 0·001), 6-8 months (P = 0·003) and 9-12 months (P < 0·001) less often than the BLCF group. The BLCF group had significantly greater intakes of Na (P = 0·028) and fat from food (P = 0·035), and significantly lower intakes of Fe from milk (P = 0·012) and free sugar in the 6-8 months subgroup (P = 0·03) v. the SW group. Fe intake was below the Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for both groups and Na was above the RNI in the BLCF group.
conclusionCompared with the SW group, the BLCF group was offered foods higher in Na and lower in Fe; however, the foods offered contained less free sugar.
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.