Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention on child consumption of target fruit or vegetable, outcome: 1.1 Fruit and/or vegetable intake.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention on child consumption of target fruit or vegetable, outcome: 1.1 Fruit and/or vegetable intake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Funnel plot of comparison: 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus usual care., outcome: 3.1 Fruit and/or vegetable intake.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison: 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus usual care., outcome: 3.1 Fruit and/or vegetable intake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Funnel plot of comparison: 4 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus usual care, outcome: 4.1 Fruit and/or vegetable intake.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Funnel plot of comparison: 4 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus usual care, outcome: 4.1 Fruit and/or vegetable intake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Vegetable intake.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Vegetable intake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ risk of bias.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ risk of bias.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 5 Vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ modality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 5 Vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ modality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 6 Vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 6 Vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Fruit and vegetable intake.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Fruit and vegetable intake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ modality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ modality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 5 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 5 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Fruit and vegetable intake.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Fruit and vegetable intake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Child feeding interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under

Child feeding interventions compared to no intervention for children aged 5 years and under

Patient or population: children aged 5 years and under
Setting: Various: Preschool (n = 2), School (n = 1), Home + Lab (n = 2), Child health clinic (n = 1), Home (n = 4), Home + health facility (n = 1)
Intervention: Child‐feeding interventions
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no intervention

Risk with Child feeding interventions

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) child vegetable intake

The mean vegetable intake was 7.7 grams1

The mean vegetable intake (grams) in the intervention group was 4.03 higher (1.59 higher to 6.47 higher)

‐

1509
(11 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2, 3, 4

Scores estimated using a standardised mean difference of 0.38 (0.15 to 0.61) and a standard deviation of 10.61.1

The mean duration of follow up post‐intervention for studies included in the meta‐analysis was 4.6 weeks.

2 studies that compared 1 or more child‐feeding practice interventions to a no‐treatment control could not be synthesised in meta‐analysis; both reported a significant increase in fruit or vegetables or both

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) cost effectiveness ‐ not reported

No child feeding interventions reported this outcome

‐

‐

‐

‐

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) unintended adverse events

One trial (Spill 2011a) reported no adverse effects on amount of meal consumed

‐

39
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 5, 6, 7

‐

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)

CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1We used the post‐intervention mean and standard deviation of the control group from Wardle 2003a for the risk with no intervention and to re‐express the SMD in terms of grams of intake.
2Downgraded one level for unexplained heterogeneity: Analysis 1.1 (main analysis): I2 = 73%; Analysis 1.2 (excluding studies at high risk of bias): I2 = 14%; Analysis 1.3 (excluding studies that did not state primary outcome): I2 = 76%; Analysis 1.4 (excluding studies with high attrition and no ITT analysis) I2 = 27%; Analysis 1.5 (subgroup analysis of face‐to‐face studies) I2 = 77%).
3Downgraded one level for risk of bias: Fewer than half of the included studies were rated at low risk of bias for 3 of 4 criteria.
4Downgraded one level for high probability of publication bias: Most included studies were not combined in meta‐analysis.
5Downgraded one level for risk of bias: assessed as high risk of bias for number of domains.
6Downgraded one level for imprecision: total sample size was < 400.
7Downgraded one level for high probability of publication bias: no other studies reported assessing adverse events, so selective reporting suspected.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Child feeding interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 2. Parent nutrition education interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under

Parent nutrition education interventions compared to no intervention for children aged 5 years and under

Patient or population: children aged 5 years and under
Setting: Various: Parenting group (n = 1), Home (n = 4), Primary care clinic (n = 1), Community health centre (n = 1), Preschool (n = 2), Preschool + home (n = 1)
Intervention: Parent nutrition education interventions
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no intervention

Risk with Parent nutrition education interventions

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) child fruit and vegetable intake

The mean serves of vegetables per day was 1.61

The mean serves of vegetables per day in the intervention group was 0.11 higher (0.05 lower to 0.28 higher)

‐

3023
(10 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2, 3, 4

Scores estimated using a standardised mean difference of 0.11 (‐0.05 to 0.28) and a standard deviation of 1.01

The mean duration of follow up post‐intervention for studies included in the meta‐analysis was 9.8 weeks.

1 trial could not be pooled in the meta‐analysis; it found an intervention targeting parent responsivity and behaviour management to be effective in increasing total fruit intake compared to control

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) cost effectiveness

Information regarding intervention costs was reported in 1 trial (Campbell 2013)

‐

389
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 5, 6, 7

‐

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) unintended adverse events

One trial (Wyse 2012) reported no adverse effect on family food expenditure

‐

343
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 5, 6, 8

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1We used the post‐intervention mean and standard deviation of the control group from Skouteris 2015 for the risk with no intervention and to re‐express the SMD in terms of serves of vegetables per day.
2Downgraded one level for unexplained heterogeneity: Analysis 2.1 (main analysis): I2 = 72%; Analysis 2.2 (excluding studies that did not state primary aim): I2 = 52%; Analysis 2.3 (excluding studies with high attrition and no ITT analysis): I2 = 48%; Analysis 2.3 (subgroup analysis face‐to‐face studies): I2 = 78%.
3Downgraded one level for risk of bias: Most studies were at high risk of bias for lack of blinding, and fewer than half were at low risk of bias for other methodological limitations.
4Downgraded one level for imprecision: the confidence intervals contained the null value.
5Downgraded one level for risk of bias: study assessed as high risk of bias for number of domains.
6Downgraded one level for imprecision: total sample size was < 400.
7 Downgraded one level for high probability of publication bias: no other studies reported cost effectiveness, so selective reporting suspected.
8 Downgraded one level for high probability of publication bias: no other studies reported assessing adverse events, so selective reporting suspected.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Parent nutrition education interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 3. Multicomponent interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under

Multicomponent interventions compared to no intervention for children aged 5 years and under

Patient or population: children aged 5 years and under
Setting: Various: Preschool (n = 2), school (n = 1), preschool + home (n = 1)
Intervention: Multicomponent interventions
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no intervention

Risk with Multicomponent interventions

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) child fruit and vegetable intake

The mean cups of vegetables per day was 1.081

The mean cups of vegetables per day in the intervention group was 0.29 higher (0.06 lower to 0.66 higher)

‐

1861
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2, 3, 4

Scores estimated using a standardised mean difference of 0.28 (‐0.06 to 0.63) and a standard deviation of 1.051

The mean duration of follow up post‐intervention for studies included in the meta‐analysis was 1.3 weeks.

4 studies could not be pooled in meta‐analysis. 3 reported significant increases in both fruit and vegetable consumption, and 1 significantly increased fruit but not vegetable consumption

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) cost effectiveness ‐ not reported

No studies reported this outcome

‐

‐

‐

‐

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) unintended adverse events ‐ not reported

No studies reported this outcome

‐

‐

‐

‐

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1We used the post‐intervention mean and standard deviation of the control group from Williams 2014 for the risk with no intervention and to re‐express the SMD in terms of cups vegetables per day.
2Downgraded one level for unexplained heterogeneity: Analysis 3.1 (main analysis): I2 = 79%; Analysis 3.2 (excluding studies that did not state primary outcome): I2 = 86%; Analysis 3.3 (excluding studies with high attrition that did not undertake ITT analysis): I2 = 0%.
3Downgraded one level for risk of bias: fewer than half of the included studies were rated at low risk of bias for 2 of 4 criteria.
4Downgraded one level for imprecision: the confidence intervals contained the null value.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Multicomponent interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 4. Child nutrition education interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under

Child nutrition education interventions compared to no intervention for children aged 5 years and under

Patient or population: children aged 5 years and under
Setting: Preschool
Intervention: Child nutrition education interventions
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no intervention

Risk with Child nutrition education interventions

Short‐term impact (< 12 months) child fruit and vegetable intake

The mean short‐term impact (< 12 months) child vegetable intake frequency score was 4 (a score of 4 corresponds to consumption of vegetables 3 ‐ 4 times per week)

MD 0

‐

238
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

The only study (Baskale 2011) reported an increase in some of the fruits and vegetables assessed in the intervention group and no significant differences in the control group

The duration of follow up post‐intervention was 8 weeks.

Cost or cost effectiveness ‐ not reported

No studies reported this outcome

‐

‐

‐

‐

Unintended adverse events ‐ not reported

No studies reported this outcome

‐

‐

‐

‐

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Downgraded one level for risk of bias: high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and loss to follow‐up.
2Downgraded one level for imprecision: total sample size < 400.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Child nutrition education interventions compared to no intervention for children aged five years and under
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vegetable intake Show forest plot

11

1509

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.61]

2 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ risk of bias Show forest plot

11

1509

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.61]

2.1 Low/unclear risk of bias

5

487

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.03, 0.44]

2.2 High risk of bias

6

1022

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.08, 0.87]

3 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome Show forest plot

11

1509

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.61]

3.1 Primary outcome of child fruit or vegetable intake

9

1228

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.19, 0.76]

3.2 Primary outcome unclear

2

281

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.17, 0.30]

4 Vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data Show forest plot

11

1509

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.61]

4.1 Low attrition or high attrition with ITT analysis

8

757

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.10, 0.48]

4.2 High attrition and no ITT analysis

3

752

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [‐0.16, 1.27]

5 Vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ modality Show forest plot

11

1509

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.61]

5.1 Face‐to‐face

9

1328

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.10, 0.65]

5.2 Other modality

2

181

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.06, 0.66]

6 Vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting Show forest plot

11

1509

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.61]

6.1 School or preschool

3

341

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [‐0.12, 0.47]

6.2 Home

4

474

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.18, 0.95]

6.3 Home + Lab

2

40

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.09, 1.39]

6.4 Other settings

2

654

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.14, 0.36]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of child feeding intervention versus no intervention
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Fruit and vegetable intake Show forest plot

10

3023

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.05, 0.28]

2 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome Show forest plot

10

3023

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.05, 0.28]

2.1 Primary outcome of child fruit or vegetable intake

7

2737

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.10, 0.15]

2.2 Primary outcome unclear

3

286

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.03, 1.00]

3 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data Show forest plot

10

3023

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.05, 0.28]

3.1 Low attrition or high attrition with ITT analysis

6

2463

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.02, 0.24]

3.2 High attrition and no ITT analysis

4

560

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.45, 0.59]

4 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ modality Show forest plot

10

3023

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.05, 0.28]

4.1 Face‐to‐face only

5

826

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.20, 0.45]

4.2 Audio visual only

2

386

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐0.04, 0.85]

4.3 Other modality

3

1811

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.22, 0.21]

5 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting Show forest plot

10

3023

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.05, 0.28]

5.1 Home

5

2047

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.16, 0.27]

5.2 Preschool

2

243

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐0.27, 1.13]

5.3 Other settings

3

733

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.14, 0.26]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of parent nutrition education intervention versus no intervention
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Fruit and vegetable intake Show forest plot

4

1861

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.06, 0.63]

2 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome Show forest plot

4

1861

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.06, 0.63]

2.1 Primary outcome of child fruit or vegetable intake

3

1167

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [‐0.20, 0.95]

2.2 Primary outcome unclear

1

694

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.13, 0.38]

3 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ sensitivity analysis ‐ missing data Show forest plot

4

1861

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.06, 0.63]

3.1 Low attrition or high attrition with ITT analysis

2

265

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.39, 1.01]

3.2 High attrition and no ITT analysis

2

1596

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.08, 0.20]

4 Fruit and vegetable intake ‐ subgroup analysis ‐ setting Show forest plot

4

1861

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.06, 0.63]

4.1 School or preschool

3

1608

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.07, 0.20]

4.2 Other settings

1

253

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.40, 1.04]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Short‐term impact (< 12 months) of multicomponent intervention versus no intervention
Ir a la tabla de la revisión