Skip to main content
. 2025 Apr 28;122(1):185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.04.022

TABLE 2.

Pooled effects of MMS compared with IFA on length, LAZ, stunting (fixed effects).

Effect of MMS vs. IFA Length (cm)
LAZ score
Stunting (LAZ <−2)
No. of studies No. of infants Mean difference (95% CI), fixed effects No. of studies No. of infants Mean difference (95% CI), fixed effects Risk ratio (95% CI), fixed effects
Birth 14 43,546 0.05 (0.02, 0.08) 8 25,664 0.09 (0.06, 0.12) 0.91 (0.88, 0.95)
3 mo 7 24,669 0.18 (0.12, 0.24) 7 24,625 0.09 (0.06, 0.12) 0.86 (0.82, 0.91)
6 mo 9 18,878 0.08 (0.01, 0.16) 9 18,850 0.04 (0.01, 0.07) 0.96 (0.91, 1.02)
12 mo 7 16,314 0.05 (−0.03, 0.14) 7 14,293 0.02 (−0.02, 0.06) 1.01 (0.97, 1.06)
18 mo 5 2937 0.20 (−0.03, 0.43) 5 2927 0.01 (−0.06, 0.09) 0.99 (0.90, 1.09)
24 mo 4 8450 −0.06 (−0.20, 0.08) 5 8693 −0.03 (−0.07, 0.02) 1.03 (0.98, 1.07)

The table shows the generic inverse variance weighted pooled mean differences or pooled risk ratios with their corresponding 95% CIs comparing MMS and IFA intervention groups. Number of infants were calculated from effective sample sizes.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IFA, iron and folic acid supplements; LAZ, length-for-age z-score; MMS, multiple micronutrient supplementation.