Trial reportJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics2024
A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects of Opaque Bottles on Maternal Sensitivity, Infant Intake, and Infant Weight Status.
Trial report in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundConventional clear infant feeding bottles provide visual cues about the amount of milk consumed, which may decrease caregivers' sensitivity to infant cues, increase infant intake, and lead to greater infant weight gain.
objectiveThis study examined feasibility, adherence, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of an intervention in which families received clear vs opaque bottles.
designA pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial was conducted. PARTICIPANTS/
settingParticipants included mothers (N = 76) with young infants (2.9 ± 1.4 months old). Data collection occurred between December 2018 and July 2022 and within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, California. All assessments occurred within participants' homes.
interventionParticipants were randomized to use clear (Clear group, n = 38) or opaque (Opaque group, n = 38) bottles for 12 weeks.
main outcome measuresWe assessed feasibility of recruitment and retention, participant perceptions of study bottles, participant adherence to the intervention, maternal sensitivity to cues, infant intake (mL and mL/kg), and infant weight-for-length z-scores (WLZ). STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Data were analyzed using linear regression, χ
resultsOf 842 potential participants, 295 (35%) could not be reached after initial contact, 166 (20%) declined to participate, and 305 (36%) were ineligible. Of those who declined, 16 (10%) declined because they did not want to use study bottles. No differences were observed for loss to follow-up for Clear (8 of 38; 21%) vs Opaque (5 of 38; 13%) groups (P = 0.36) or for reported use of assigned bottles for Clear (89.8% ± 24.5% of daily feedings) vs Opaque (90.1% ± 22.1%) groups (P = 0.96). No group differences were observed for sensitivity to cues (P = 0.52) or intake (mL, P = 0.53 or mL/kg, P = 0.56) at follow-up. Opaque group infants had lower WLZ at follow-up compared with Clear group infants (mean difference, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.08, 0.86; η
conclusionsRelative to providing clear bottles, providing families with opaque bottles appeared feasible and acceptable, with good adherence. Although preliminary, study findings suggest the potential of opaque bottles to support healthier weight outcomes for bottle-fed infants.
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.