Table 2

Quality assessment of trials on complementary food with or without education

Quality Assessment

Summary of Findings


Directness

No of events


No of studies

Design

Limitations

Consistency

Generalizability to population of interest

Generalizability to intervention of interest

Intervention

Control

RR or SMD (95% CI)


Height gain: Moderate outcome-specific quality


4 studies[17,24-26]

RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

2 studies suggest benefit

To food insecure population

257

255

SMD 0.34(-0.09, 0.78)

Food insecure population


Height for age: Moderate outcome-specific quality


7 studies[17,22,24-26,29,30]

RCT +non RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

2 studies suggest benefit

To food insecure population

704

948

SMD 0.39 (0.05, 0.73)

Food insecure population


Stunting: Moderate outcome-specific quality


7 studies[17,22,24-26,29,30]

RCT +non RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

To food insecure population

704

948

RR 0.33 (0.11, 1.00)

Food insecure population


Weight gain: Moderate outcome-specific quality


4 studies[17,24-26]

RCT

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

1 study suggest benefit

To food insecure population

247

255

SMD 0.43 (-0.42, 1.27)

Food insecure population


Weight-for-age: Moderate outcome-specific quality


3 studies[22,25,30]

RCT+ non RCTs

Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity

1 study suggest benefit

To food insecure population

162

156

SMD 0.26 (0.04, 0.48)

Food insecure population


Underweight: Moderate outcome-specific quality


1 study[30]

Non RCT

Only one study and to food insecure population

170

149

RR 0.35 (0.16, 0.77)

Food insecure population


Lassi et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13(Suppl 3):S13   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S13

Open Data