Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31865428›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2020

Do the opinions of pediatricians influence their recommendations on complementary feeding? Preliminary results.

Paolo Brambilla, Marco Giussani, Marina Picca, Gaetano Bottaro, Roberto Buzzetti, Gregorio P Milani, Carlo Agostoni, Paolo Becherucci

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paolo BrambillaSocietà Italiana delle Cure Primarie Pediatriche (Italian Society of Family Pediatricians), Milan, Italy.
Marco GiussaniSocietà Italiana delle Cure Primarie Pediatriche (Italian Society of Family Pediatricians), Milan, Italy.
Marina PiccaSocietà Italiana delle Cure Primarie Pediatriche (Italian Society of Family Pediatricians), Milan, Italy.
Gaetano BottaroSocietà Italiana delle Cure Primarie Pediatriche (Italian Society of Family Pediatricians), Milan, Italy.
Roberto BuzzettiFreelance Epidemiologist, Bergamo, Italy.
Gregorio P MilaniFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Pediatric Area, Via della Commenda 9, 20121, Milan, Italy.
Carlo AgostoniFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Pediatric Area, Via della Commenda 9, 20121, Milan, Italy. carlo.agostoni@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5006-0832
Paolo BecherucciSocietà Italiana delle Cure Primarie Pediatriche (Italian Society of Family Pediatricians), Milan, Italy.
Italian Society of Physiotherapy · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAdultFemaleHumansInfantItalyMaleMiddle AgedPediatricsSurveys and QuestionnairesDevelopmental readinessNutritional advicePreventionResponsive feedingSalt consumption

Identifiers

PMID31865428
OpenAlexW2996728185

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.