Should we continue to counsel families to use hydrolyzed formulas as a means of allergy prevention in high-risk infants?

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

1. The Role of Infant Formulas in the Primary Prevention of Allergies in Non-Breastfed Infants at Risk of Developing Allergies-Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Group of Experts.Nutrients · 2022
   Article
2. The Risk Reduction Effect of a Nutritional Intervention With a Partially Hydrolyzed Whey-Based Formula on Cow's Milk Protein Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis in High-Risk Infants Within the First 6 Months of Life: The Allergy Reduction Trial (A.R.T.), a Multicenter Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022
   Article

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract