Ó£»¨ÊÓÆµ

Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of trials on complementary food with or without education

From: Impact of education and provision of complementary feeding on growth and morbidity in children less than 2 years of age in developing countries: a systematic review

Ìý

Quality Assessment

Summary of Findings

Ìý

Directness

No of events

Ìý

No of studies

Design

Limitations

Consistency

Generalizability to population of interest

Generalizability to intervention of interest

Intervention

Control

RR or SMD (95% CI)

Height gain: Moderate outcome-specific quality

4 studies[17, 24–26]

RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

2 studies suggest benefit

To food insecure population

Ìý

257

255

SMD 0.34(-0.09, 0.78)

Food insecure population

Height for age: Moderate outcome-specific quality

7 studies[17, 22, 24–26, 29, 30]

RCT +non RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

2 studies suggest benefit

To food insecure population

Ìý

704

948

SMD 0.39 (0.05, 0.73)

Food insecure population

Stunting: Moderate outcome-specific quality

7 studies[17, 22, 24–26, 29, 30]

RCT +non RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

Ìý

To food insecure population

Ìý

704

948

RR 0.33 (0.11, 1.00)

Food insecure population

Weight gain: Moderate outcome-specific quality

4 studies[17, 24–26]

RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

1 study suggest benefit

To food insecure population

Ìý

247

255

SMD 0.43 (-0.42, 1.27)

Food insecure population

Weight-for-age: Moderate outcome-specific quality

3 studies[22, 25, 30]

RCT+ non RCTs

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

1 study suggest benefit

To food insecure population

Ìý

162

156

SMD 0.26 (0.04, 0.48)

Food insecure population

Underweight: Moderate outcome-specific quality

1 study[30]

Non RCT

ÌýÌý

Only one study and to food insecure population

Ìý

170

149

RR 0.35 (0.16, 0.77)

Food insecure population