ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2020
Do the opinions of pediatricians influence their recommendations on complementary feeding? Preliminary results.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical variability in complementary feeding counseling in Türkiye: results from a pediatrician survey.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Complementary Feeding in the Clinical Practice: An Exploratory Survey among Italian Primary Care Pediatricians.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Article
- Factors impacting complementary feeding advice given by paediatricians in Cyprus.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Complementary Feeding: Tradition, Innovation and Pitfalls.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Distance learning, technological devices, lifestyle and behavior of children and their family during the COVID-19 lockdown in Lombardy: a survey.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Complementary Feeding in Italy: From Tradition to Innovation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Early feeding and nutritional status of Portuguese children in the first 36 months of life: EPACI Portugal 2012-a national representative cross-sectional study.Porto biomedical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complementary feeding practices are debated among pediatricians, primarily regarding whether nutritional needs or developmental readiness should be prioritized in recommendations for starting complementary feeding. The aim of the present study was to analyze the timing of the start of complementary feeding and the related motivations with an 8-item online survey administered to active members of the Italian Society of Primary Care Pediatricians. The participation rate was 43.3% (350 of 808), and 213 (60.9%) and 137 (39.1%) of the participants chose items related to developmental readiness and nutritional needs, respectively, as the criteria for starting complementary feeding. Approximately 74% of the participants reported that they recommended starting complementary feeding between 5 and 6 months of age, 17% recommended starting before 5 months, and 8% recommended starting after 6 months. Predefined schemes were proposed by 38% of the participants, and a responsive feeding modality was proposed by 13%, while the majority (49%) recommended both modalities depending on family characteristics. Regarding recommendations based on nutritional needs, 89% of pediatricians reported providing indications concerning the quantity of meat consumed during the first year of life, and 91% reported recommending introducing added salt only after 12 months of age. Compared with pediatricians who emphasized developmental readiness, those who prioritized nutritional needs suggested earlier complementary feeding start and a higher use of predefined schemes and were more likely to make recommendations regarding meat quantity and added salt (p < 0.0001).Conclusions: Pediatricians who used a developmental readiness criterion for starting complementary feeding may less frequently provide nutritional advice to parents, even if a trend to harmonize the different positions regarding complementary feeding start time is emerging.What is Known:• Pediatricians make suggestions for introducing complementary feeding based on scientific evidence, local traditions, and personal beliefs.• Either infants' nutritional needs or their developmental readiness currently is used as determinant for the timing of complementary feeding.What is New:• More than 60% of Italian pediatricians consider developmental readiness a priority for introducing complementary feeding.• Pediatricians following the criterion of developmental readiness may less frequently give detailed nutritional advice.
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.