ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2022
Design Factors for Food Supplementation and Nutrition Education Interventions That Limit Conclusions about Effectiveness for Wasting Prevention: A Scoping Review of Peer-Reviewed Literature.
Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tackling Waste of Fruits and Vegetables in Chilean Households with Tailored Informational-Enablement Interventions: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prevention of wasting and nutritional oedema: evidence gaps identified during WHO guideline development.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a scoping review to characterize the evidence base for the effectiveness of food supplementation (FS), nutrition education (NE), or FS/NE interventions to prevent wasting among children aged 6 to 59 mo. We aimed to identify gaps in peer-reviewed literature and to develop recommendations for strengthening study designs. We identified 56 unique studies (FS = 21, NE = 19, FS/NE = 16) for which we assessed intervention design factors, implementation context, evaluation methods, and wasting impact. Compared with studies focused on stunting, fewer wasting-focused studies reported weight-for-height z score (WHZ). Midupper arm circumference (MUAC) was more commonly reported in wasting-focused studies (71.4%) than those focused on stunting (36.8%) or wasting and stunting (30.4%). FS studies measured anthropometry (mean, 95% CI) more frequently at every 11.3 (7.8, 14.8) wk than NE interventions at 36.3 (8.8, 62.1) wk (P = 0.036), but not FS/NE interventions at 25.8 (5.6, 49.1) wk (P = 0.138). NE interventions tended to be of longer duration than FS or FS/NE interventions. Only 6 studies followed and measured children after the intervention period ended. Across all studies, 45% reported a significant effect on wasting; these included FS, NE, and FS/NE interventions. The lack of comparability across studies limits conclusions about the effectiveness of specific types of interventions. To build a more unified evidence base for wasting prevention we recommend that future studies 1) report on a consistent set of metrics, including MUAC; 2) attempt to measure change in wasting incidence using more frequent measures; 3) measure wasting prevalence among the general population; 4) follow children postintervention to assess relapse; 5) measure food insecurity and diet quality; and 6) use harmonized protocols across multiple settings. Such efforts to improve study comparability will strengthen the evidence base, may help unite divergent professional communities, and ultimately accelerate progress toward eliminating child undernutrition.
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.