Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

259 questions · 268 findings · 33 reviews

No studies found 56 · 20.9%GRADE not reported 21 · 7.8%Very low 68 · 25.4%Low 64 · 23.9%Moderate 49 · 18.3%High 10 · 3.7%

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

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

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) 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