SynthesisPediatric research2023
Protein and growth during the first year of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric research, 2023. 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.
- The Association Between the Early Introduction of Solid Food and Childhood Obesity Risk: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Infant Feeding Practices and Their Association with Early-Life Nutrient Intake: Baseline Findings from the Baby-Act Trial.Dietetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Protein Nutrition: Understanding Structure, Digestibility, and Bioavailability for Optimal Health.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dietary protein intake in the first year of life might influence later growth. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the growth effects of interventions based on infant formula composition providing different amounts of protein within the first year of life of healthy term infants; in the absence of other comparable information over the investigated period, a meta-analysis further compared weight or length gain at 120 days from high- (>2.0 g/100 kcal) and low-protein (≤2.0 g/100 kcal) content formula groups. Twelve papers (n = 2275) were included and five of them (n = 677) contributed to the meta-analysis. Most studies compared a high-protein formula, a low-protein formula, and breastfeeding. Evidence from the systematic review was inconclusive due to heterogeneity in design and treatments. In the presence of modest heterogeneity but in the absence of publication bias, the weighted mean difference for weight gain at 120 days was -0.02 g/day (95% CI: -1.41, 1.45); with higher heterogeneity, the weighted MD estimate of length gain at 120 days was 0.004 cm/month (95% CI: -0.26, 0.27). Although limited and underpowered, evidence from the meta-analysis does not support the assumption that high- vs. low-protein content formulas during exclusive milk-feeding lead to different growth outcomes in the first months of life. Prospero registration number: CRD42017058535. IMPACT: The optimal amount of dietary protein that should be given to healthy full-term infants early in life is still debated. Despite heterogeneity in study design, treatments, and outcomes, this systematic review showed that there is no clear-cut effect on the growth of different amounts of protein intake from formulas or complementary feeding. Evidence from the meta-analysis based on the five articles enrolling infants <1 month of life does not support the previous assumption that high- vs. low-protein content formulas during exclusive milk-feeding lead to different growth outcomes in the first 4 months of life.
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.