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

TABLE 4.

Pooled effects of MMS compared with IFA on weight, WAZ, underweight (fixed effects).

Effect of MMS vs. IFA Weight (kg)
WAZ score
Underweight (WAZ <−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 18 60,379 0.04 (0.03, 0.05) 9 28,444 0.12 (0.09, 0.14) 0.87 (0.84, 0.91)
3 mo 7 24,990 0.11 (0.09, 0.13) 7 24,969 0.10 (0.07, 0.13) 0.86 (0.81, 0.90)
6 mo 9 19,063 0.04 (0.01, 0.07) 9 19,041 0.04 (0.00, 0.07) 0.97 (0.91, 1.04)
12 mo 7 16,534 0.02 (−0.01, 0.05) 7 16,523 0.02 (−0.01, 0.06) 0.97 (0.92, 1.01)
18 mo 8 2941 0.09 (−0.00, 0.18) 5 2926 0.05 (−0.03, 0.13) 0.89 (0.78, 1.02)
24 mo 4 8718 0.01 (−0.04, 0.05) 5 10,073 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) 1.01 (0.96, 1.05)

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 supplementation; MMS, multiple micronutrient supplementation; WAZ, weight-for-age z-score.