MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989524282 · doi:10.12688/gatesopenres.13083.2

Interventions to improve linear growth during complementary feeding period for children aged 6-24 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W2989524282 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGates Open Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactHIV Legal NetworkUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMicronutrientMeta-analysisPsychological interventionMedicineMalnutritionMicronutrient deficiencyEnvironmental healthPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Optimizing linear growth in children during complementary feeding period (CFP) (6-24 months) is critical for their development. Several interventions, such as micronutrient and food supplements, deworming, maternal education, and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), could potentially be provided to prevent stunting, but their comparative effectiveness are currently unclear. In this study, we evaluated comparative effectiveness of interventions under these domains on child linear growth outcomes of height-for-age z-score (HAZ) and stunting (HAZ &lt;-2SD) </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> For this study, we searched for low- and middle-income country (LMIC)-based randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of aforementioned interventions provided to children during CFP. We searched for reports published until September 17, 2019 and hand-searched bibliographies of existing reviews. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) for HAZ and stunting. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> The evidence base for our NMA was based on 79 RCTs (96 papers) involving 81,786 children. Among the micronutrients, compared to standard-of-care, iron + folic acid (IFA) (mean difference =0.08; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.01, 0.15) and multiple micronutrients (MMN) (mean difference =0.06; 95%CrI: 0.01, 0.11) showed improvements for HAZ; MMN also reduced the risks for stunting (RR=0.86; 95%Crl: 0.73, 0.98), whereas IFA did not (RR=0.92; 95%Crl: 0.64, 1.23). For food supplements, flour in the caloric range of 270-340 kcal (RR=0.73; 95%Crl: 0.51, 1.00) and fortified lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) containing 220-285 kcal (RR=0.80; 95%Crl: 0.66, 0.97) decreased the risk of stunting compared to standard-of-care, but these interventions and other food supplements did not show improvements for HAZ. Deworming, maternal education, and WASH interventions did not show improvements for HAZ nor stunting. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusion:</ns4:bold> While we found micronutrient and food supplements to be effective for HAZ and/or stunting, the evidence base for other domains in this life stage was limited, highlighting the need for more investigation. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Registration:</ns4:bold> PROSPERO <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns3="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns3:href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110449">CRD42018110449</ns4:ext-link> ; registered on 17 October 2018. </ns4:p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it