Trial reportPloS one2025
Do children allocated to different methods of complementary feeding introduction have distinct food preferences and flavor acceptance in the first years of life? A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the food preferences and flavor acceptance among children allocated to different methods of complementary feeding (CF) introduction in the first years of life. This randomized clinical trial (RCT) involved three distinct groups of children regarding the method of CF introduction: Parent-Led Weaning (PLW); Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS); and Mixed (both PLW and BLISS methods). The intervention occurred at 5.5 months old, and food preferences were analyzed between the ages of 12-35 months using the Food Preferences Questionnaire and the Taste Acceptance Test. The analysis was performed by intention-to-treat, using Pearson's chi-square test, Mann-Whitney test and Poisson regression. A d irected a cyclic g raph (DAG) was used to define the covariates. A total of 140 mother-infant pairs were randomized for the study (PLW n = 45; BLISS: n = 48; and Mixed: n = 47). Of them, 132 completed the Food Preferences Questionnaire, and 92 attended the Taste Acceptance Test. In unadjusted analysis, the prevalence of preferences for foods with a predominant sour taste was higher in the Mixed method compared to the PLW [Crude prevalence ratio (PR): 1.23; 95% CI: 1.03-1.47; p = 0.020]. However, after adjusting for covariates, this association did not remain statistically significant (Adjusted PR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.94-1.41; p = 0.173). There was a significant association between the consumption of the solutions and their respective hedonic reactions in most of the offered tastes (sweet: p < 0.001; sour: p = 0.029; salty: p = 0.005; umami: p = 0.026). In addition, food preferences related to the bitter taste were associated with the higher acceptance of the solution with the same taste in unadjusted analysis (Crude PR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.1-1.25, p = 0.046), but this association did not remain significant in the adjusted analysis (Adjusted PR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.99-1.37; p = 0.069). In conclusion, infants in the Mixed group showed higher sour taste preference than PLW, though not significant after adjustment.
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.