Trial reportCoDAS2026
Complementary feeding introduction methods and pediatric feeding disorder in the first year of life: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in CoDAS, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether the method of introducing complementary feeding (CF) is related to pediatric feeding disorders (PFD) in the first year of life.
methodsClinical trial with 128 mother-child pairs randomized into intervention groups by CF methods: traditional, Baby-Led Introduction to Solids (BLISS), or mixed. The intervention was carried out at the infants' 5 and a half months of age in an experimental kitchen with meals prepared according to the randomized method. Follow-up was conducted at their 7 and 9 months of age. At 12 months, the Brazilian Child Feeding Scale (EBAI) was applied to screen for PFD. This study was registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC).
resultsPFD was present in 16 (12.5%) children: 5 (3.9%) from the traditional method (3 with mild PFD and 2 with severe PFD), 9 (7%) from the BLISS method (5 with mild PFD, 2 with moderate PFD, and 2 with severe PFD), and 2 (1.6%) from the mixed method (both with mild PFD). In the analysis of the 14 EBAI questions, the responses tended towards the adequate and/or favorable aspects across all CF methods, with no statistically significant differences.
conclusionPFD was not influenced by the CF method in the study sample.
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.