Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31348509›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Association of Early Interventions With Birth Outcomes and Child Linear Growth in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: Bayesian Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Jay J H Park, Mei Lan Fang, Ofir Harari, Louis Dron, Ellie G Siden, Reham Majzoub, Virginia Jeziorska, Kristian Thorlund, Edward J Mills, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exploring the Fetal Origins Hypothesis Using Genetic Data.Social forces; a scientific medium of social study and interpretation · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jay J H ParkExperimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Mei Lan FangMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ofir HarariMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Louis DronMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ellie G SidenMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Reham MajzoubDepartment of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Virginia JeziorskaMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kristian ThorlundMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Edward J MillsMTEK Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaCenter of Excellence in Women and Child Health, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
McMaster University · CAAga Khan University · PKImpact · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The first 1000 days of life represent a critical window for child development. Pregnancy, exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) period (0-6 months), and complementary feeding (CF) period (6-24 months) have different growth requirements, so separate considerations for intervention strategies are needed. No synthesis to date has attempted to quantify the associations of interventions under multiple domains of micronutrient and balanced energy protein and food supplements, deworming, maternal education, water sanitation, and hygiene across these 3 life periods with birth and growth outcomes. Objective: To determine the magnitude of association of interventions with birth and growth outcomes based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) using Bayesian network meta-analyses. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception up to August 14, 2018. Study Selection: Included were LMIC-based RCTs of interventions provided to pregnant women, infants (0-6 months), and children (6-24 months). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed for each life period. Effect sizes are reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MeanDiffs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). This study calculated probabilities of interventions being superior to standard of care by at least a minimal clinically important difference. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study compared ORs on preterm birth and MeanDiffs on birth weight for pregnancy, length for age (LAZ) for EBF, and height for age (HAZ) for CF. Results: Among 302 061 participants in 169 randomized clinical trials, the network meta-analyses found several nutritional interventions that demonstrated greater association with improved birth and growth outcomes compared with standard of care. For instance, compared with standard of care, maternal supplements of multiple micronutrients showed reduced odds for preterm birth (OR, 0.54; 95% CrI, 0.27-0.97) and improved mean birth weight (MeanDiff, 0.08 kg; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.17 kg) but not LAZ during EBF (MeanDiff, -0.02; 95% CrI, -0.18 to 0.14). Supplementing infants and children with multiple micronutrients showed improved LAZ (MeanDiff, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.03-0.35) and HAZ (MeanDiff, 0.14; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.25). The study found that pregnancy interventions generally had higher probabilities of a minimal clinically importance difference than the interventions for the EBF or CF in the first 1000 days of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These analyses highlight the importance of intervening early for child development, during pregnancy if possible. Results of this study suggest that there is a need to combine interventions from multiple domains and test for their effectiveness as a package.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAdultBayes TheoremChild, PreschoolDeveloping CountriesDietary SupplementsEarly Medical InterventionFemaleHumansIncomeInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMicronutrientsNutrition TherapyMicronutrients

Identifiers

PMID31348509
PMCPMC6661710
OpenAlexW2962711050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.