Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 66.7%Very low 1 · 33.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Baby-led weaning (BLW) vs Traditional complementary feeding (TCF)

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

Baby-led weaning/BLISS did not significantly influence infant weight-length (adequate weight) gain versus other complementary feeding models (pooled OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 10.51; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Baby-led weaning (BLW) vs Traditional complementary feeding (TCF)

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

Among observational studies, baby-led weaning was associated with lower odds of overweight/obesity than other feeding models (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.55), but certainty is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Baby-led weaning (BLW) / BLISS vs Traditional complementary feeding (TCF)

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

No significant difference in choking risk was found between BLW/BLISS-fed and traditionally fed infants (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review