Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35267923›Full record

ReviewNutrients2022

Understanding Sex Differences in Childhood Undernutrition: A Narrative Review.

Susan Thurstans, Charles Opondo, Andrew Seal, Jonathan C Wells, Tanya Khara, Carmel Dolan, André Briend, Mark Myatt, Michel Garenne, Andrew Mertens and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. The gut microbiota in malnutrition.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Child Height in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Enhancing Resistance toNutrients · 2025
    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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Susan ThurstansDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Charles OpondoDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Andrew SealUCL Institute for Global Health, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Jonathan C WellsPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0411-8025
Tanya KharaEmergency Nutrition Network, Oxford OX5 2DN, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6251-0052
Carmel DolanEmergency Nutrition Network, Oxford OX5 2DN, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1130-6948
André BriendCenter for Child Health Research, School of Medicine, Tampere University, 33520 Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9390-8541
Mark MyattBrixton Health, Llwyngwril, Gwynedd LL37 2JD, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1119-1474
Michel GarenneInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMI Résiliences, 93140 Bondy, France.
Andrew MertensSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA.
Rebecca SearDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-0223
Marko KeracDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3745-7317
University of London · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBGwynedd Council · GBInstitut Pasteur · FRUniversity College London · GBUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Irish Aid HQPU/2020/ENNUnited States Agency for International Development NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complementing a recent systematic review and meta-analysis which showed that boys are more likely to be wasted, stunted, and underweight than girls, we conducted a narrative review to explore which early life mechanisms might underlie these sex differences. We addressed different themes, including maternal and newborn characteristics, immunology and endocrinology, evolutionary biology, care practices, and anthropometric indices to explore potential sources of sex differences in child undernutrition. Our review found that the evidence on why sex differences occur is limited but that a complex interaction of social, environmental, and genetic factors likely underlies these differences throughout the life cycle. Despite their bigger size at birth and during infancy, in conditions of food deprivation, boys experience more undernutrition from as early as the foetal period. Differences appear to be more pronounced in more severe presentations of undernutrition and in more socioeconomically deprived contexts. Boys are more vulnerable to infectious disease, and differing immune and endocrine systems appear to explain some of this disadvantage. Limited evidence also suggests that different sociological factors and care practices might exert influence and have the potential to exacerbate or reverse observed differences. Further research is needed to better understand sex differences in undernutrition and the implications of these for child outcomes and prevention and treatment programming.

Indexed as

Child Nutrition DisordersMalnutritionBiological EvolutionChildFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleSex CharacteristicsThinnessagesexundernutrition

Identifiers

PMID35267923
PMCPMC8912557
OpenAlexW4213434136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.