ReviewNutrients2024
Current Evidence on Nutrient Intakes and Infant Growth: A Narrative Review of Baby-Led Weaning vs. Conventional Weaning.
Review in Nutrients, 2024. 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.
- Associations Between Complementary Feeding Approach, Dietary Intake, and Growth: A Secondary Analysis of the Maternal and Infant Nutrition Trial.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2026Trial
- Ultra-Processed Food Intake Is Associated with High Consumption of Added Sugar and Sodium in U.S. Infants.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Association between feeding practices and infants' nutritional intake: a 6-month prospective cohort study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Infant gut microbiome reprogramming following introduction of solid foods (weaning).Gut microbes · 2025Review
- The Regulation of Energy Intake in Infancy: A Narrative Review.Current obesity reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Throughout infancy, changes in growth and development are observed, including changes in nutritional requirements; at approximately 6 months of age, when complementary feeding begins, breastmilk and/or formula are no longer the sole source of energy and nutrients. Little is known about the impact of complementary feeding (CF) approaches used during this time on infant nutrition and growth. Baby-led weaning (BLW) has continued to gain popularity over the last two decades, emphasizing the importance of examining the adequacy of different CF methods. This narrative review of 19 studies from January 2010 to April 2024 aims to discuss the differences between BLW and conventional weaning (CW). The definition of BLW varied across studies, and no standard definition has been established. Though no differences in energy were reported, macronutrient and micronutrient intakes were variable between approaches, including for micronutrients such as iron and zinc. Of the few studies with growth data, results comparing BLW and CW were conflicting. Differences were seen in the demographics of parents who chose to follow BLW and breastfeeding prevalence and duration prior to complementary feeding. Additional research is needed to understand the impacts of BLW and CW on nutrient intakes and growth to inform recommendations for infant complementary feeding approaches.
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.