Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

9 questions · 9 findings · 1 reviews · related questions CL0289

No studies found 3 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 2 · 22.2%Very low 2 · 22.2%Low 1 · 11.1%Moderate 1 · 11.1%High 0 · 0%

Responsive complementary feeding (RCF) vs Other models of complementary feeding (traditional/non-responsive CF)

Overweight/obesity risk · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

Responsive complementary feeding probably reduces the risk of overweight/obesity versus other feeding models (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Responsive complementary feeding (RCF) vs usual care

Z score BMI · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

In one RCT, responsive complementary feeding lowered BMIz at 13 months versus control (0.23 vs 0.42, p=0.01; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Responsive complementary feeding (RCF) vs Other models of complementary feeding (traditional/non-responsive CF)

Physical growth / weight gain · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

Two RCTs suggest responsive complementary feeding leads to better weight gain in the first two years, though effects were small and not always sustained (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Overweight/obesity risk · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

Non-responsive complementary feeding showed no significant association with overweight/obesity across observational studies (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Weight gain · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Overweight/obesity risk · Healthy children aged 6–24 months in Western industrialized countries

NRCF showed no significant association with overweight/obesity across the reported comparisons (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Responsive / non-responsive complementary feeding (RCF/NRCF) vs Other models of complementary feeding

Choking · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

No systematic reviews or studies assessed choking risk for RCF or NRCF (only BLW/BLISS); this is an evidence gap.

1 finding from 1 review