Table 2 Quality assessment of trials on complementary food with or without education
| Â | Quality Assessment | Summary of Findings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Directness | No of events | Â | |||||
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 | ||||||||
RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 2 studies suggest benefit | To food insecure population | Â | 257 | 255 | SMD 0.34(-0.09, 0.78) Food insecure population | |
Height for age: Moderate outcome-specific quality | ||||||||
RCT +non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 2 studies suggest benefit | To food insecure population | Â | 704 | 948 | SMD 0.39 (0.05, 0.73) Food insecure population | |
Stunting: Moderate outcome-specific quality | ||||||||
RCT +non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | Â | To food insecure population | Â | 704 | 948 | RR 0.33 (0.11, 1.00) Food insecure population | |
Weight gain: Moderate outcome-specific quality | ||||||||
RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 1 study suggest benefit | To food insecure population | Â | 247 | 255 | SMD 0.43 (-0.42, 1.27) Food insecure population | |
Weight-for-age: Moderate outcome-specific quality | ||||||||
RCT+ non RCTs | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 1 study suggest benefit | To food insecure population | Â | 162 | 156 | SMD 0.26 (0.04, 0.48) Food insecure population | |
Underweight: Moderate outcome-specific quality | ||||||||
1 study[30] | Non RCT | Â | Â | Only one study and to food insecure population | Â | 170 | 149 | RR 0.35 (0.16, 0.77) Food insecure population |