Trial reportJornal de pediatria
Choking, gagging and complementary feeding methods in the first year of life: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Disease burden of pulmonary aspiration and foreign body in airway in Asian children: a review based on Global Burden of Disease data and projections for 2035.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Health professionals' knowledge and attitudes towards baby led weaning: A cross-sectional, exploratory, and observational study.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Investigation of Complementary Feeding Transition Behaviours in Mothers in the Process of Transition to Complementary Feeding: A Cross-Sectional Study.Child: care, health and development · 2025Article
- Complementary feeding in the first year of life: choking and gagging; what about nutrition?Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare the occurrence of choking and gagging in infants subjected to three complementary feeding (CF) methods.
methodsRandomized clinical trial with mother-infant pairs, allocated according to the following methods of CF: a) Parent-Led Weaning (PLW) - group control, b) Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS), and c) mixed (initially BLISS and if the infant presents a lack of interest or dissatisfaction, PLW), with the last two methods guided by the infant. Mothers received nutritional intervention on CF and prevention of choking and gagging according to the method at 5.5 months of age and remained in follow-up until 12 months. Frequencies of choking and gagging were collected by questionnaire at nine and 12 months. The comparison between groups was performed using the analysis of variance test (p < 0.05).
results130 infants were followed, and 34 (26.2%) children presented choking between six and 12 months of age, 13 (30.2%) in PLW, 10 (22.2%) BLISS, and 11 (26.2%) mixed method, no significative difference between methods (p > 0.05). The choking was caused mainly by the semi-solid/solid consistency. Moreover, 100 (80%) infants aged from six to 12 months presented gagging and their characteristics were not statistically different among groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionInfants following a baby-led feeding method that includes advice on minimizing choking risk do not seem more likely to choke than infants following traditional feeding practice that includes advice on minimizing choking risk.
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.