Question · asked by 1 review
Community‐based growth monitoring and promotion (with supplementary feeding) vs usual care: Infant and child feeding practices
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Community‐based growth monitoring and promotion (with supplementary feeding) vs standard care Infant and child feeding practices · and The impact of growth monitoring and promotion on health indicators in children under five years of age in… (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 564 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The impact of growth monitoring and promotion on health indicators in children under five years of age in low‐ and middle‐income countries 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.