Bhandari 2001.
| Methods | Study date: 2001. Study design: RCT. Individual randomisation, stratified. Feeding of home‐delivered rations. Delivered twice‐weekly | |
| Participants | SES or context: Low‐ and middle‐income country: South Dehli, India. Urban slum of Nehru place. 80% of women and 40% of men have never been to school. Most families were migrants from rural areas. Median family income is 2000 Rupees (USD 50) per month. Live in dwellings made of mud, concrete or a mixture of both Nutritional status: 22% ‐ 25% had HAZ < 2 SD below mean Age: Children were enrolled at the age of 4 months Number: Supplemented = 87; nutritional counselling = 97; no intervention = 93; visitation = 91 Sex: Both. 42% ‐ 54% boys |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: Feeding alone: 50 g milk cereal supplement prepared with 50 ml water. Given to mothers to prepare and to give to infants twice daily. Twice‐weekly delivery and morbidity assessments Energy: 941 kj, 7 g fat, 8 g protein, 30 g carbohydrates, 2.5 g minerals Duration: 8 months % DRI for energy: 4 ‐ 5 months = 89.9%, 6 ‐ 11 months = 126% % DRI for protein: 4 ‐ 5 months = 191.84%, 6 ‐ 11 months = 354.63%. Protein energy ratio 14.21 Control: Home‐feeding as usual Provider: UNICEF Supervised: Twice‐weekly visits by staff. Asked mothers about consumption and collected packets Compliance: Empty containers collected to measure compliance |
|
| Outcomes | Physical: Weight and length | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not clear how randomisation was done |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not clear |
| Baseline outcome measurements | Low risk | No difference in weight between group that was fed and controls |
| Baseline characteristics | Unclear risk | Not applicable |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Follow‐up rate was good, and not much different between experimental and control group |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Personnel who distributed the food were not blind, participant's mothers would have also known |
| Protection from contamination | Unclear risk | Not assessed |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No access to protocol |