ArticleJAMA network open2020
Recommendations on Complementary Food Introduction Among Pediatric Practitioners.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feeding Practices and Dietary Diversity in the First Year of Life: PreventADALL, a Scandinavian Randomized Controlled Trial and Birth Cohort Study.The Journal of nutrition · 2023Trial
- Article
- Article
- Evaluating the face validity of early eats: A consumer-focused educational website to enhance practical skills in complementary feeding and early allergen introduction.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026Article
- Association between feeding practices and infants' nutritional intake: a 6-month prospective cohort study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Navigating early allergenic food introduction: Practices and barriers among parents and caregivers.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025Article
- Developmental Readiness for Complementary Feeding: Associations with Initiation Before Age 6 Months.The Journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Textural Flow Analysis of United States Commercially Available Baby Foods: Packaging and Delivery Method Comparisons by the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative Framework.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical variability in complementary feeding counseling in Türkiye: results from a pediatrician survey.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Dietary Approaches for Complementary Feeding: The Greek Mediterranean Diet as a Model for Caregivers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Complementary Feeding in the Clinical Practice: An Exploratory Survey among Italian Primary Care Pediatricians.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Complementary Feeding Practices: Recommendations of Pediatricians for Infants with and without Allergy Risk.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Parental Decision-Making Around Introducing Complementary Foods: An Integrative Review.Journal of family nursing · 2023Review
- Error in Byline and Affiliations.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Maternal Experiences with Discussing Complementary Feeding in Primary Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A pragmatic approach to infant feeding for food allergy prevention.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2022Article
- Breastfeeding and complementary feeding in fragile settings: the case of Syrian refugees and their host communities in North Lebanon.International breastfeeding journal · 2022Article
- Dietary exposures and allergy prevention in high-risk infants.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Article
- Article
- Exploring Physicians' Perspectives on the Introduction of Complementary Foods to Infants and Toddlers.Nutrients · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend waiting 3 to 5 days between the introduction of new complementary foods (solid foods introduced to infants <12 months of age), yet with advances in the understanding of infant food diversity, the guidance that pediatric practitioners are providing to parents is unclear. Objective: To characterize pediatric practitioner recommendations regarding complementary food introduction and waiting periods between introducing new foods. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a 23-item electronic survey on complementary food introduction among infants was administered to pediatric health care professionals from February 1 to April 30, 2019. Responses were described among the total sample and compared among subgroups. Survey invitations were emailed to 2215 members of the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the national American Academy of Pediatrics' Council on Early Childhood. Participants were required to be primary medical practitioners, such as physicians, resident physicians, or nurse practitioners, providing pediatric care to infants 12 months or younger. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measures were recommendations on age of complementary food introduction and waiting periods between the introduction of new foods. Categorical survey items were reported as numbers (percentages) and 95% CIs. Means (SDs) were used to describe continuous survey items. Results: The survey was sent to 2215 practitioners and completed by 604 (response rate, 27.3%). Of these respondents, 41 were excluded because they did not provide care for infants or pediatric patients. The final analyses included responses from 563 surveys. Of these, 454 pediatricians (80.6%), 85 resident physicians (15.1%), and 20 nurse practitioners (3.6%) completed the survey. Only 217 practitioners (38.6%; 95% CI, 34.1%-44.6%) recommended waiting 3 days or longer between food introduction; 259 practitioners (66.3%; 95% CI, 61.4%-70.8%) recommended waiting that amount of time for infants at risk for food allergy development (P = .02). A total of 264 practitioners (46.9%; 95% CI, 42.8%-51.0%) recommended infant cereal as the first food, and 226 practitioners (40.1%; 95% CI, 36.1%-44.2%) did not recommend a specific order. A total of 268 practitioners (47.6%; 95% CI, 43.5%-51.7%) recommended food introduction at 6 months for exclusively breastfed (EBF) infants, and 193 (34.3%; 95% CI, 30.5%-38.3%) recommended food introduction at 6 months for non-EBF infants (P < .001); 179 practitioners (31.8%; 95% CI, 28.1%-35.8%) recommended food introduction at 4 months for EBF infants, and 239 practitioners (42.5%; 95% CI, 38.4%-46.6%) recommended food introduction at 4 months for non-EBF infants (P < .001). A need for additional training on complementary food introduction was reported by 310 practitioners (55.1%; 95% CI, 50.9%-59.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, most pediatric practitioners did not counsel families to wait 3 days or longer between introducing foods unless infants were at risk for food allergy development. The findings suggest that the current recommendation limits infant food diversity and may delay early peanut introduction. Because the approach to food allergy prevention has changed, a reevaluation of published feeding guidelines may be necessary.
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.