ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Feeding Problems Assessment Tools in Children: A Scoping Review.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Effects of feeding behavior training on sensory processing and developmental areas in children with cerebral visual impairment: a randomized controlled study.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Trial
- The influence of family in children's feeding difficulties: an integrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Feeding challenges in early infancy: the role of reflexes, muscle tone, and developmental milestones.PeerJ · 2025Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
'Feeding problems' is a term used to describe problems that may present typically in children. Problems with feeding during infancy can result in significant negative consequences for a child's nutrition, growth, and brain development. This scoping review aims to map current research, provide summary of the available feeding problem assessment tools for children, and review current implications and the gaps between tools, providing information that academics, practitioners, and parents may find useful. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, and ProQuest) were searched using terms related to feeding problem assessment tools in children, which included, but were not limited to, "feeding difficult*", "eating problem", "eating difficult*", "tool", "child*", and "pediatric". The following limits were implemented on the search: English language, age limit (<18 years old) and publication period (last 10 years). Data management and analysis carried out manually through discussion with the team. Authors 1 and 2 screened titles and abstracts, then full texts were discussed with the full team to identify articles that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were charted into a matrix table based on these categories: author, year, population, assessment tools, usage and aspects. Thematic analysis was carried out to summarize the characteristics of the studies. There were 47 papers included in the study and analysis, in which 23 assessment tools were found. Pedi-EAT was the most frequent assessment tool used in the studies, with nine papers covering this feeding problem assessment tool. MCH-FS came in second for its chosen tool quantifying children's feeding problems, with a total of seven papers covering this tool, along with BPFAS with seven papers. In this review, 23 assessment tools were validated and tested for reliability. Pedi-EAT, MCH-FS and BPFAS were commonly used instruments. However, it is clear that no single instrument covers comprehensively all aspects of feeding problems in children. In addition, usage of the tools and wide age range indicate that further research is needed to fill the gaps.
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.