Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

13 questions · 13 findings · 1 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 4 · 30.8%GRADE not reported 4 · 30.8%Very low 2 · 15.4%Low 2 · 15.4%Moderate 1 · 7.7%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

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

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

Type 2 diabetes (later in life) · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

No eligible studies examined the influence of complementary feeding practices on later type 2 diabetes; this is an evidence gap.

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

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

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

No eligible studies examined the influence of complementary feeding practices on later hypertension; this is an evidence gap.

1 finding from 1 review

Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS) 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

In RCTs, BLISS did not significantly change overweight/obesity risk versus traditional feeding (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 17.79; 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

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

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

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

No eligible studies examined the influence of complementary feeding practices on later dental caries; this is an evidence gap.

1 finding from 1 review