Table 1.

Quality assessment of trials on nutrition education

	Quality Assessment					Summary of Findings
				Directness		No of events
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
6 studies Food secure[13,15,19,21] Food insecure[16,17]	RCT + non RCT	Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity	3 studies suggest benefit			1410	1327	SMD 0.35 (0.08, 0.62) Food secure population SMD 0.00 (-0.15, 0.16) Food insecure population
Height for age: Moderate outcome-specific quality
5 studies Food secure[14,15,19,21] Food insecure[18]	RCT + non RCT	Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity	2 studies suggest benefit			1007	974	SMD 0.22 (0.01, 0.43) Food secure population SMD 0.25 (0.09, 0.42) Food insecure population
Stunting: Moderate outcome-specific quality
Food secure[14,15,19,21] Food insecure[18]	RCT + non RCT	Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity	1 study suggest benefit			991	949	RR 0.70 (0.49,1.01) Food secure population RR 0.68 (0.60,0.76) Food insecure population
Weight gain: Moderate outcome-specific quality
7 studies Food secure[13,15,19,21] Food insecure[12,16,17]	RCT + non RCT	Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity	4 studies suggest benefit			1583	397	SMD 0.40 (0.02, 0.78) Food secure population SMD 0.06 (-0.13, 0.25) Food insecure population
Weight-for-age: Moderate outcome-specific quality
6 studies Food secure[14,15,19,21] Food insecure[12,18]	RCT + non RCT	Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity	2 studies suggest benefit			1260	1150	SMD 0.12 (-0.02, 0.26) Food secure population SMD 0.26 (0.12, 0.41) Food insecure population
Underweight: Moderate outcome-specific quality
1 study[16]	RCT	Fixed effects		Only one study and to food secure population		435	394	RR 1.03 (0.90, 1.18) Food secure population