Cochrane · systematic review · CD009584
Specially formulated foods for treating children with moderate acute malnutrition in low‐ and middle‐income countries
Lazzerini, M, Rubert, L, Pani, P · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning ProblemsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
23
current version
GRADE rated
23
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 4.3%Low 4 · 17.4%Moderate 13 · 56.5%High 5 · 21.7%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care
Population: children with MAM
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Recovered Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | RR 1.29 [1.2, 1.38] | 2 studies · 2152 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Not recovered Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | RR 0.97 [0.74, 1.27] | 1 study · 1974 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Defaulted Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | RR 0.3 [0.22, 0.39] | 1 study · 1974 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Weight gain, total Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 178 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
WHZ final Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1546 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
MUAC gain Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 178 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
HAZ final Summary of findings: Specially formulated foods vs Standard care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1546 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose)
Population: children with MAM
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Recovered Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | RR 1.1 [1.04, 1.16] | 5 studies · 6367 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Not recovered Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | RR 0.53 [0.4, 0.69] | 3 studies · 4537 participants | High |
Progression to SAM Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | RR 0.88 [0.72, 1.07] | 3 studies · 4537 participants | High |
Died Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | RR 0.93 [0.54, 1.62] | 5 studies · 6367 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Defaulted Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | RR 1.14 [0.62, 2.11] | 4 studies · 5107 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Weight gain, daily Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 3223 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
WHZ gain Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3631 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
MUAC gain Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 3550 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Vomiting Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements (full dose) vs Blended foods (full dose) | RR 1.43 [1.11, 1.85] | 1 study · 2712 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++
Population: children with MAM
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Recovered Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | RR 1.04 [0.99, 1.09] | 3 studies · 4758 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Progression to SAM Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | RR 0.84 [0.69, 1.02] | 2 studies · 4081 participants | High |
Defaulted Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | RR 1.27 [0.75, 2.16] | 2 studies · 4081 participants | High |
Weight gain Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3389 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
WHZ gain Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 3048 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
MUAC gain Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3730 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Height gain Summary of findings: Lipid‐based nutrient supplements vs CSB++ | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3730 participants | High |