Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Aug 30;13(9):3036.
doi: 10.3390/nu13093036.

Effect of Oral Nutritional Supplementation on Growth in Children with Undernutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhiying Zhang  1 , Fei Li  2 , Bridget A Hannon  3 , Deborah S Hustead  3 , Marion M Aw  4 , Zhongyuan Liu  1 , Khun Aik Chuah  1 , Yen Ling Low  3 , Dieu T T Huynh  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effect of Oral Nutritional Supplementation on Growth in Children with Undernutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhiying Zhang et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are used to promote catch-up growth in children with undernutrition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence of ONS intervention effects on growth for 9-month- to 12-year-old children who were undernourished or at nutritional risk. Eleven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria; trials compared changes in anthropometric measures in children using ONS or ONS + DC (dietary counselling) to measures for those following usual diet or placebo or DC alone. The RCTs included 2287 children without chronic diseases (mean age 5.87 years [SD, 1.35]; 56% boys). At follow-up time points up to 6 months, results showed that children in the ONS intervention group had greater gains in weight (0.423 kg, [95% confidence interval 0.234, 0.613], p < 0.001) and height (0.417 cm [0.059, 0.776], p = 0.022) versus control; greater gains in weight (0.089 kg [0.049, 0.130], p < 0.001) were evident as early as 7-10 days. Longitudinal analyses with repeated measures at 30, 60, and 90 days showed greater gains in weight parameters from 30 days onwards (p < 0.001), a trend towards greater height gains at 90 days (p = 0.056), and significantly greater gains in height-for-age percentiles and Z-scores at 30 and 90 days, respectively (p < 0.05). Similar results were found in subgroup analyses of studies comparing ONS + DC to DC alone. For children with undernutrition, particularly those who were mildly and moderately undernourished, usage of ONS in a nutritional intervention resulted in significantly better growth outcomes when compared to control treatments (usual diet, placebo or DC alone).

Keywords: children; malnutrition; meta-analysis; oral nutritional supplements; review; undernutrition.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Abbott Nutrition was responsible for the study design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation and submission. Z.Z., F.L., B.H., D.S.H., Z.L., K.A.C., Y.L.L. and D.T.T.H. are employees of Abbott Nutrition. M.M.A. did not receive funding from Abbott Nutrition for this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Identification, screening, and selection of articles for the meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in weight parameters between intervention and control based on the longest follow-up time point. (a) Weight (kg), (b) weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ), (c) weight-for-age percentile (WAP), (d) weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ), (e) weight-for-height percentile (WHP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in weight parameters between intervention and control based on the longest follow-up time point. (a) Weight (kg), (b) weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ), (c) weight-for-age percentile (WAP), (d) weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ), (e) weight-for-height percentile (WHP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in weight parameters between intervention and control after 30, 60, and 90 days of intervention. (a) Weight (kg), (b) weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ), (c) weight-for-age percentile (WAP), (d) weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ), (e) weight-for-height percentile (WHP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in weight parameters between intervention and control after 30, 60, and 90 days of intervention. (a) Weight (kg), (b) weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ), (c) weight-for-age percentile (WAP), (d) weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ), (e) weight-for-height percentile (WHP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in height parameters between intervention and control based on the longest follow-up time point. (a) Height (cm), (b) height-for-age Z-score (HAZ), (c) height-for-age percentile (HAP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in height parameters between intervention and control based on the longest follow-up time point. (a) Height (cm), (b) height-for-age Z-score (HAZ), (c) height-for-age percentile (HAP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Meta-analysis results on the difference in mean change in height parameters between intervention and control after 30, 60, and 90 days of intervention. (a) Height (cm), (b) height-for-age Z-score (HAZ), (c) height -for-age percentile (HAP). SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Meta-analysis results on the difference in change in total energy intake between intervention and control based on the longest follow-up time point. SU: severely underweight; UW: underweight. The forest plot shows the mean difference (squares) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (horizontal bars) for intervention vs. control. The values were combined using a meta-analysis to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect from all the included studies (diamond).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. De Onis M., Branca F. Childhood stunting: A global perspective. Matern. Child Nutr. 2016;12((Suppl. 1)):12–26. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12231. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mwangome M., Prentice A.M. Tackling the triple threats of childhood malnutrition. BMC Med. 2019;17:210. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1464-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. UNICEF-WHO-World Bank . Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: Key Findings of the 2020 Edition of the Joint Child. Malnutrition Estimates. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; Geneva, Switzerland: 2020.
    1. Black R.E., Victora C.G., Walker S.P., Bhutta Z.A., Christian P., de Onis M., Ezzati M., Grantham-McGregor S., Katz J., Martorell R., et al. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2013;382:427–451. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Briend A., Khara T., Dolan C. Wasting and stunting--similarities and differences: Policy and programmatic implications. Food Nutr. Bull. 2015;36:S15–S23. doi: 10.1177/15648265150361S103. - DOI - PubMed