Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Eligibility of studies for inclusion in the systematic review
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Eligibility of studies for inclusion in the systematic review

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 2 Length (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 2 Length (cm).

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 3 Weight‐for‐length z‐score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 3 Weight‐for‐length z‐score.

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 4 Head circumference (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 4 Head circumference (cm).

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 5 Mid‐upper‐arm circumference (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 5 Mid‐upper‐arm circumference (cm).

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 6 Triceps skinfold thickness (mm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 6 Triceps skinfold thickness (mm).

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 7 Subscapular skinfold thickness (mm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months, Outcome 7 Subscapular skinfold thickness (mm).

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 2 Height/length (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 2 Height/length (cm).

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 3 Head circumference (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 3 Head circumference (cm).

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 4 Arm circumference (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo, Outcome 4 Arm circumference (cm).

Comparison 3 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in poor children after 3 months, Outcome 1 Weight z‐scores.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in poor children after 3 months, Outcome 1 Weight z‐scores.

Comparison 3 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in poor children after 3 months, Outcome 2 Height z‐scores.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in poor children after 3 months, Outcome 2 Height z‐scores.

Table 1. Length(1) of 3‐year‐old children before and after supplementation by villa

GUATEMALA STUDY 1995

Large village‐Atole

Large village‐Fresco

Small village‐Atole

Small village‐Fresco

After (2)

86.70

84.00

85.95

84.35

Before (3)

83.45

83.30

83.40

84.15

Change

3.25

0.70

2.55

0.20

Difference in change (large villages): 2.55

Difference in change (small villages): 2.35

Overall difference in change: mean = 2.45 +/‐ 0.10, t‐test= 24.50, p< 0.005 (Two‐tailed probability, df = 2).

(1) Means of sex‐specific data calculated from Table 3 in Martorell et al. (1982).
(2) Born between 1969 and 1973.
(3) Measured in 1968.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Length(1) of 3‐year‐old children before and after supplementation by villa
Comparison 1. Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Weight (kg) Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [‐0.29, 0.87]

2 Length (cm) Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.03, 2.57]

3 Weight‐for‐length z‐score Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.39, 0.39]

4 Head circumference (cm) Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐0.21, 1.01]

5 Mid‐upper‐arm circumference (cm) Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.29, 0.69]

6 Triceps skinfold thickness (mm) Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.51, 0.91]

7 Subscapular skinfold thickness (mm) Show forest plot

1

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.34, 0.74]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in stunted children after 12 months
Comparison 2. Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Weight (kg) Show forest plot

1

75

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [‐0.27, 0.59]

2 Height/length (cm) Show forest plot

1

75

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐1.61, 1.41]

3 Head circumference (cm) Show forest plot

1

75

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.41, 0.79]

4 Arm circumference (cm) Show forest plot

1

75

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.22, 0.42]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Energy‐protein supplementation vs low‐energy /low protein supplementation in poor children after 12 mo
Comparison 3. Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in poor children after 3 months

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Weight z‐scores Show forest plot

1

20

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.64, 1.02]

2 Height z‐scores Show forest plot

1

20

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.87, 1.11]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Energy‐protein supplementation vs non supplementation in poor children after 3 months