Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) provided at a dose that meets total daily nutritional requirements vs RUTF using an alternative formulation: Recovery during intervention defined as weight gain ≥ 15% in relation to baseline weight, absence of complications and oedema, and MUAC > 110 mm in 2 studies; MUAC > 12.4 cm without oedema in 1 study; WHZ ≥ 80% for two consecutive visits in 1 stud...
Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) showed no clear difference in recovery during intervention defined as weight gain ≥ 15% in… compared with RUTF using an alternative formulation (high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) vs RUTF using an alternative formulation Recovery during intervention defined as weight gain ≥ 15% in relation to baseline weight, absence of complications and oedema, and MUAC > 110 mm in 2 studies; MUAC > 12.4 cm without oedema in 1 study; WHZ ≥ 80% for two consecutive visits in 1 stud... · children aged 6 months‐5 years with SAM (and mixed HIV comorbidity), some of whom had been stabilised as inpatients… Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) showed no clear difference in recovery during intervention defined as weight gain ≥ 15% in… compared with RUTF using an alternative formulation (high certainty). Ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) for home‐based nutritional rehabilitation of severe acute malnutrition… (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.08] | 6 studies · 4188 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) for home‐based nutritional rehabilitation of severe acute malnutrition in children from six months to… 2019 · 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.