Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36904076›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2023

Effectiveness of Dietary Management for Moderate Wasting among Children > 6 Months of Age-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Exploring Different Types, Quantities, and Durations.

Bernardette Cichon, Jai K Das, Rehana A Salam, Zahra A Padhani, Heather C Stobaugh, Muzna Mughal, Patrizia Pajak, Alexandra Rutishauser-Perera, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Robert E Black

Open access · goldFull text readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Bernardette CichonAction Against Hunger UK, Operations Department, London SE10 0ER, UK.
Jai K DasInstitute for Global Health and Development, Aga Khan University, Karachi 74800, Pakistan.
Rehana A SalamThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5423-7343
Zahra A PadhaniInstitute for Global Health and Development, Aga Khan University, Karachi 74800, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-4777-7565
Heather C StobaughAction Against Hunger USA, Technical Services and Innovation Department, Washington, DC 20463, USA.
Muzna MughalAction Against Hunger UK, Operations Department, London SE10 0ER, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7478-2469
Patrizia PajakAction Against Hunger UK, Operations Department, London SE10 0ER, UK.
Alexandra Rutishauser-PereraAction Against Hunger UK, Operations Department, London SE10 0ER, UK.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaInstitute for Global Health and Development, Aga Khan University, Karachi 74800, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-0637-599X
Robert E BlackBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9926-7984
Action for ME · GBAga Khan University · PKJohns Hopkins University · USThe University of Sydney · AUTufts University · US

Funding

World Health Organization N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, no World Health Organization guidelines exist for the management of approximately 31.8 million moderately wasted children globally. The objective of this review was to synthesise evidence on the optimal type, quantity, and duration of dietary treatment for moderate wasting. Ten electronic databases were searched until the 23rd of August 2021. Experimental studies comparing interventions for the dietary management of moderate wasting were included. Meta-analyses were conducted and results were presented as risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Seventeen studies comparing specially formulated foods were included involving 23,005 participants. Findings suggest little or no difference in recovery between Fortified Blended Foods (FBFs) with improved micronutrient and/or milk content (enhanced FBFs) and lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS), whereas children treated with non-enhanced FBFs (locally produced FBFs or standard corn-soy blend) may have lower recovery rates than those treated with LNS. There was no difference in recovery when ready-to-use therapeutic and ready-to-use supplementary food were compared. Other outcomes mostly aligned with results for recovery. In conclusion, LNSs improve recovery compared to non-enhanced FBFs, but are comparable to enhanced FBFs. Programmatic choice of supplement should consider factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability. Further research is required to determine optimal dosing and duration of supplementation.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsMalnutritionAnimalsCachexiaChildDietFood, FortifiedHumansInfantMilkcorn–soy blendfortified blended foodsmoderate acute malnutritionready-to-use supplementary foodsready-to-use therapeutic foodssupercerealwasting

Identifiers

PMID36904076
PMCPMC10005276
OpenAlexW4321498383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read12
measurements read91
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.