Table 1 Quality assessment of trials on nutrition education
| Â | Quality Assessment | Summary of Findings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Directness | No of events | Â | |||||
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 | RCT + non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 3 studies suggest benefit | Â | Â | 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 insecure[18] | RCT + non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 2 studies suggest benefit | Â | Â | 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 insecure[18] | RCT + non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 1 study suggest benefit | Â | Â | 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 | RCT + non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 4 studies suggest benefit | Â | Â | 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 | RCT + non RCT | Random effect model was used because of heterogeneity | 2 studies suggest benefit | Â | Â | 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 | Â | Only one study and to food secure population | Â | 435 | 394 | RR 1.03 (0.90, 1.18) Food secure population |