TABLE 4.
Relation between animal-source food intake and stunting in included studies1
| Reference and study design | Animal- source food (ASF) | Comparators | Child age at assessment, mo2 | Stunting prevalence | Stunting prevalence ratio3 | Stunting rate | Odds of stunting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bauserman, 2015 (19) randomized controlled trial (RCT) | Caterpillar cereal | Usual diet | 6, 9, 12, 18 | Not significant (NS) | — | — | — |
| Iannotti, 2017 (20) RCT | Eggs | Usual diet | 15 (model not age adjusted) | — | NS | — | — |
| — | — | 15 (age adjusted model) | — | PR (95% CI): 0.26 (0.10, 0.70)‡ | — | — | |
| Krebs, 2012 (21) RCT | Beef | Fortified rice-soy cereal | 6, 9, 12, 18 | — | — | NS | — |
| Darapheak, 2013 (32) cross-sectional (CS) | ASF | Consumed food group in previous 24 h (yes vs. no) | 12–594 | — | — | — | Odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 0.69 (0.54, 0.89)‡ |
| Milk products | — | 12–594 | — | — | — | NS | |
| Semba, 2011 (35) CS | Fortified milk powder | Consumed food group in previous 24 h (yes vs. no) | 6–594 (rural participants) | 43.4% vs. 56.2%§ | — | — | OR (95% CI): 0.87 (0.85, 0.90)§ |
| — | — | 6–594 (urban participants) | 42.8% vs. 53.7%§ | — | — | OR (95% CI): 0.80 (0.76, 0.85)§ | |
| Walker, 1990 (36) CS | Dairy | Number of items consumed by stunted vs. nonstunted children | 9–244 | Median (range) stunted 1.5 (0, 4.0) vs. nonstunted 2.0 (0.5, 4.0) § | — | — | — |
| Meat, fish, and eggs | — | 9–244 | NS | — | — | — | |
| Zhao, 2016 (37) CS | Eggs | Consumed food group in previous 24 h (yes vs. no) | 6–364 (model not age adjusted) | — | — | — | NS |
| — | — | 6–364 (age adjusted model) | — | — | — | NS | |
| Meat | — | 6–364 (model not age adjusted) | — | — | — | NS | |
| — | — | 6–364; (age adjusted model) | — | — | — | NS |
1
Associations in this table are limited to those that were reported via tests of statistical significance. Statistical significance: ‡ = P < 0.01; § = P < 0.001; Not significant (NS) = P ≥ 0.05.
2
Single digits separated by commas, e.g., 6, 9, 12 mo, indicates that the associations reported were for the measures taken at each time point.
3
Stunting prevalence ratio is the prevalence of stunting in the intervention group divided by the prevalence of stunting in the control group.
4
Ages pooled in analysis.