Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) provided at a dose that meets total daily nutritional requirements vs as a supplement to the usual diet: Recovery during intervention defined as WHZ > 0 in 1 study; 100% weight for height in 1 study
Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) provided at a dose… may leads to higher recovery during intervention defined as WHZ > 0 in 1 study; 100%… compared with as a supplement to the usual diet (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) provided at a dose that meets total daily nutritional requirements vs as a supplement to the usual diet Recovery during intervention defined as WHZ > 0 in 1 study; 100% weight for height in 1 study · children aged 6 months‐5 years with SAM (1 study included HIV‐uninfected children; 1 study included HIV‐infected… Standard ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) provided at a dose… may leads to higher recovery during intervention defined as WHZ > 0 in 1 study; 100%… compared with as a supplement to the usual diet (low certainty). Ready‐to‐use therapeutic food (RUTF) for home‐based nutritional rehabilitation of severe acute malnutrition… (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.41 [1.19, 1.68] | 2 studies · 210 participants | Low |
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.