TABLE 5.
Pooled effects of MMS compared with IFA on WLZ and wasting (fixed effects).
| Effect of MMS vs. IFA | WLZ score |
Wasting (WLZ <−2) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of studies | No. of infants | Mean difference (95% CI), fixed effects | No. of studies | No. of infants | Risk ratio (95% CI), fixed effects | |
| Birth1 | 8 | 22,884 | 0.08 (0.05, 0.11) | 8 | 21,567 | 0.90 (0.85, 0.96) |
| 3 mo | 7 | 24,688 | 0.03 (0.00, 0.06) | 7 | 24,688 | 0.94 (0.85, 1.04) |
| 6 mo | 9 | 18,868 | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.04) | 9 | 18,780 | 1.05 (0.94, 1.16) |
| 12 mo | 7 | 16,297 | 0.03 (−0.01, 0.07) | 7 | 16,297 | 0.97 (0.90, 1.04) |
| 18 mo | 5 | 2922 | 0.06 (−0.02, 0.14) | 5 | 2922 | 0.90 (0.72, 1.14) |
| 24 mo | 5 | 9810 | −0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) | 5 | 9810 | 1.01 (0.92, 1.09) |
The table shows the generic inverse variance weighted pooled mean differences or pooled risk ratios with their corresponding 95% CI comparing MMS and IFA intervention groups. Number of infants were calculated from effective sample sizes.
Abbreviations: BMIZ, body mass index z-score; CI, confidence interval; IFA, iron and folic acid supplementation; MMS, multiple micronutrient supplementation; WLZ, weight-for-length z-score.
1
BMIZ for 5 studies and WLZ for 3 studies.