ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2024
Research on commercial milk formulas for young children: A scoping review.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2024. 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.
- Essential and Potentially Toxic Elements in Commercial Milk Formulas: Health Risk Assessment Through a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Biological trace element research · 2026Review
- Dairy Goat Production Systems: A Comprehensive Analysis to Reframe Their Global Diversity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Research on commercial milk formulas for young children: A scoping review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A scoping review of publications about commercial milk formulas intended for or consumed by children 12-36 months (CMF 12-36) was conducted. This review aimed to comprehensively map the existing literature, identify key concepts in the field and understand its evolution through time. A total of 3329 articles were screened and 220 were included, published between 1986 and 2024. Most works were published after 2016 (70.0%) and in high-income countries (71.8%). Original studies were the vast majority (81.8%) of publications. Most publications dealt with feeding practices or analysed the composition and/or contamination of specific products (44.1% and 35.9%), but since the late 2000s, publications about marketing, policy, legislation, and consumer perception started to appear. Most published works (65.5%) did not focus exclusively on CMF 12-36 and included formulas for other demographics or other foods. About half of the works (55.5%) did not consider CMF 12-36 to be a breast milk substitute. We found 81 distinct product denominations used to refer to CMF 12-36, Growing Up Milk was the most common (25.9%). CMF industry was involved in 41.8% of all analysed works, and industry participation and funding were not always clearly informed (22.5% lacked a conflict of interest statement, and 25.5% did not present any information about funding). In the last decade, publications about CMF 12-36 have increased in volume and diversified in scope and subject matter. CMF-industry participation has always been and still is present in the field, so possible vested interests should be taken into account when appreciating the literature.
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.