MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2004327240 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008959.pub2

Home fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders for health and nutrition in children under two years of age

2011· review· en· W2004327240 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiquePlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Établissements canadiensNutrition International
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMicronutrientFortificationEnvironmental healthFood fortificationMedicineFood scienceBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vitamin and mineral deficiencies, particularly those of iron, vitamin A and zinc, affect more than two billion people worldwide. Young children are highly vulnerable because of rapid growth and inadequate dietary practices. Micronutrient powders (MNP) are single-dose packets containing multiple vitamins and minerals in powder form that can be sprinkled onto any semi-solid food.The use of MNP for home or point-of-use fortification of complementary foods has been proposed as an intervention for improving micronutrient intake in children under two years of age. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of home (point-of-use) fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders on nutritional, health and developmental outcomes in children under two years of age. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases in February 2011: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (1948 to week 2 February 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Week 6 2011), CINAHL (1937 to current), CPCI-S (1990 to 19 February 2011), Science Citation Index (1970 to 19 February 2011), African Index Medicus (searched 23 February 2011), POPLINE (searched 21 February 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 23 February 2011), mRCT (searched 23 February 2011), and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched 23 February 2011). We also contacted relevant organisations (25 January 2011) for the identification of ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials with either individual or cluster randomisation. Participants were children under the age of two years at the time of intervention, with no specific health problems. The intervention was consumption of food fortified at the point of use with multiple micronutrient powders formulated with at least iron, zinc and vitamin A compared with placebo, no intervention or the use of iron containing supplements, which is the standard practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials (3748 participants) conducted in low income countries in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, where anaemia is a public health problem. The interventions lasted between two and 12 months and the powder formulations contained between five and 15 nutrients. Six trials compared the use of MNP versus no intervention or a placebo and the other two compared the use of MNP versus daily iron drops. Most of the included trials were assessed as at low risk of bias.Home fortification with MNP reduced anaemia by 31% (six trials, RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.78) and iron deficiency by 51% (four trials, RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.67) in infants and young children when compared with no intervention or placebo, but we did not find an effect on growth.In comparison with daily iron supplementation, the use of MNP produced similar results on anaemia (one trial, RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and haemoglobin concentrations (two trials, MD -2.36 g/L; 95% CI -10.30 to 5.58); however, given the limited amount of data these results should be interpreted cautiously.No deaths were reported in the trials and information on side effects and morbidity, including malaria, was scarce.It seems that the use of MNP is efficacious among infants and young children six to 23 months of age living in settings with different prevalences of anaemia and malaria endemicity, regardless of whether the intervention lasts two, six or 12 months or whether recipients are male or female. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders is an effective intervention to reduce anaemia and iron deficiency in children six months to 23 months of age. The provision of MNP is better than no intervention or placebo and possibly comparable to commonly used daily iron supplementation. The benefits of this intervention as a child survival strategy or on developmental outcomes are unclear. Data on effects on malaria outcomes are lacking and further investigation of morbidity outcomes is needed. The micronutrient powders containing multiple nutrients are well accepted but adherence is variable and in some cases comparable to that achieved in infants and young children receiving standard iron supplements as drops or syrups.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)

Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.

BrasCatégoriesDevis d'étudeConfiance
gemmaaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Revue systématiquelow
gptaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Revue systématiquehigh
modèles en accordL'accord compare des ensembles de catégories et des devis identiques entre les bras.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,393

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,090
Tête enseignante GPT0,337
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle