Table 2.

Included studies mode of delivery (n = 2)

First author year location/setting study name	Design	Sample N & key descriptions	Exposure & measurement	Outcome/s, reference population & measurement	Key findings	MMAT score (* , ** , *** , ****)a
•Fewtrell et al., 2012 •UK	•Randomised control trial	•N = 63 enrolled & randomised after dropout N = 54 at 4 weeks •43% female •Infants all formula fed from enrolment	•Bottle antivacuum design (2 types of bottles) •Randomised at birth through to 15 days	•Absolute weight gain & weight gain z‐score to 4 weeks •Standardised to UK reference data (1990) •Directly measured at enrolment, 2, 4 weeks & 3 months	•No statistically significant difference in weight or formula consumed between the two bottle groups	**
•Wood et al., 2016 •The United States •Greenlight intervention study	•Longitudinal data from a cluster randomised control trial	•N = 386 (45% of all study participants), •53% female •Infants fully formula feeding at 2 months	•Feeding formula from “large” ≥ 6 oz (~177 ml), or “regular” bottles <6 oz (~177 ml) •Measured at 2 month clinic visit through providing study staff a sample of the usual bottle used to feed infant.	•Change in weight (2–6 months), weight for length and age z‐scores •Standardised using WHO multicentre growth reference population (2006) •Directly measured at 2 & 6 months	•Higher weight for length (and weight for age) in those infants fed with the large bottle compared to those with the regular bottle (statistically significant)	****

^aThe MMAT provides a quality score based on four pertinent criteria for each study design, studies receive one * per each criteria met. Therefore, studies may meet the following:

^* One criterion.

^** Two criteria.

^*** Three criteria.

^**** All criteria.