Question · asked by 1 review

Non-responsive complementary feeding (NRCF) vs Other models of complementary feeding: Weight gain

Population
Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries
Intervention
Non-responsive complementary feeding (NRCF)
Comparison
Other models of complementary feeding
Outcome
Weight gain

Narratively, restrictive NRCF style tended to favor excess weight and coercive/pressuring style tended to favor lower weight (3 of 5 studies each; ungraded).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Non-responsive complementary feeding (NRCF) vs Other models of complementary feeding (responsive/traditional CF)
Weight gain (restrictive vs coercive styles) · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western… · Infancy to early childhood, Outpatient care in Western industrialized (European/Anglo-Saxon) countries, Restrictive vs coercive/pressuring styles
Narratively, restrictive NRCF style tended to favor excess weight and coercive/pressuring style tended to favor lower weight (3 of 5 studies each; ungraded).
Complementary Feeding Caregivers' Practices and Growth, Risk of Overweight/Obesity, and Other… (2022) All outcomes
Restrictive style would favor excess weight (three of five studies); coercive style (pressure to eat) would favor a lower weight (three of five studies); clinical significance never quantified.Not reportedGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Complementary Feeding Caregivers' Practices and Growth, Risk of Overweight/Obesity, and Other Non-Communicable Diseases: A Systematic…
2022 All outcomes
Updated to September 202124Low / Critically Low

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.