Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Alimentación suplementaria comunitaria para promover el crecimiento de los niños menores de cinco años en los países de ingresos bajos y medios

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005039.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 13 junio 2012see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Problemas de desarrollo, psicosociales y de aprendizaje

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Yanina Sguassero

    Correspondencia a: Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Mercedes de Onis

    Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Ana María Bonotti

    Ministry of Health, Province of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • Guillermo Carroli

    Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina

Contributions of authors

YS, MDO, and GC contributed to the drafting of the protocol. Originally, YS developed the search strategy and performed the searches; YS and GC selected studies for relevance; YS and GC extracted the data; YS entered all the data into RevMan and drafted and completed the review. MDO provided expertise and guidance and contributed to the writing and editing of the review. GC extracted and double checked the data, provided methodological advice and helped to write the review.

For the updated version of this review, YS performed the initial screening of references, developed the corresponding flowchart, made the final selection of included studies, independently rated the study quality, extracted the data into Review Manager, prepared the 'Summary of findings' tables and made all amendments in the text. MDO provided expert guidance on many aspects of the update process and contributed to the editing of the review at all stages. AMB carried out independent screening of all citations located in the updated literature search, independently rated each study for eligibility and independently checked the data entry into Review Manager 5.1. GC provided methodological expertise and contributed to the risk of bias assessment.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.

  • National Ministry of Health and Environment (Beca "Ramón Carrillo‐Arturo Oñativia", CONAPRIS) Buenos Aires, Argentina.

External sources

  • Department of Nutrition of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

  • The Aubrey Sheiham Public Health and Primary Care Scholarship, The UK Cochrane Centre, UK.

Declarations of interest

Yanina Sguassero: I have received fees for participation in review activities from HQ/NHD Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization. This did not influence my work on this review.
Mercedes de Onis: none known.
Ana María Bonotti: none known.
Guillermo Carroli: none known.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Nutrition of the World Health Organization, the National Ministry of Health and Environment of Argentina and the Aubrey Sheiham Scholarship in Public Health Promotion and Primary Care for financial support to assist the completion of the first version of the systematic review published in 2005. We would also like to thank the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group (CDPLPG) for valuable advice and assistance and Shailen Nandy from the University of Bristol, UK, for his comments on the background section of the review protocol. We acknowledge Dr Edgardo Abalos, subdirector of Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Argentina, and Esther Coren from the Social Care Institute for Excellence, UK, for their contributions to draft versions of the first version of the review. We are also grateful to Dr Reynaldo Martorell for his help in clarifying details of the Guatemalan study. We appreciate very much the data provided by Dr Tom Aitchison regarding the Indonesian study published in 2000.

We are especilly grateful to Professor Geraldine Macdonald, Director of the Institute of Child Care Research, Belfast, for her valid inputs and recommendations for the updating process; to Margaret Anderson, Trials Search Coordinator of the CDPLPG, who co‐ordinated the literature search for this update, and to Laura MacDonald, Managing Editor of the CDPLPG, for her wholehearted support.

We are thankful to Maria Isern for the translation of Portuguese articles into English and to Cristina Cuesta, Senior Statistician of CREP, for her expert advice.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2012 Jun 13

Community‐based supplementary feeding for promoting the growth of children under five years of age in low and middle income countries

Review

Yanina Sguassero, Mercedes de Onis, Ana María Bonotti, Guillermo Carroli

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005039.pub3

2005 Oct 19

Community‐based supplementary feeding for promoting the growth of young children in developing countries

Review

Yanina Sguassero, Mercedes de Onis, Guillermo Carroli

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005039.pub2

2004 Jan 26

Community‐based supplementary feeding programmes for promoting the growth of young children in developing countries

Protocol

Yanina Sguassero, Mercedes de Onis, Guillermo Carroli

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005039

Differences between protocol and review

  • At the protocol stage, individually‐randomised trials were excluded if 20% or more participants were lost to follow‐up in any of the comparison groups. This was considered a threshold flexible enough for RCTs on community‐based nutritional interventions. This exclusion criterion allowed review authors to straightforwardly dispose of trials with high risk of attrition bias due to the amount of incomplete outcome data. For the current version of the review, Professor Geraldine MacDonald, the Coordinating Editor of the CDPLPG suggested we remove this criterion. This decision was made after discussion and the main reasons were: the small number of RCTs retrieved by searches and the strategies to deal with missing data of primary studies available in the latest version of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2009).

  • Potential adverse effects of supplementary feeding such as decrease in breastfeeding rates, overweight and diarrhoea were added as secondary outcomes.

  • The 'Risk of bias' tool was changed by The Cochrane Collaboration during the preparation of the updated review.

  • The World Bank list of economies of Member States was used for the updated review (July 2009). Washington, DC, World Bank, July 2009: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/CLASS.XLS. The term 'developing countries' was replaced by low‐ and middle‐income countries.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.