Complementary feeding introduction methods and pediatric feeding disorder in the first year of life: a randomized clinical trial.

Single centre in Porto Alegre, Brazil; the authors note that further studies in different populations are needed. The sample was drawn from mothers with high education levels and family income above the national average, and who were consistently present at mealtimes, limiting generalisability to lower-resource or less-engaged families. Follow-up questionnaires were completed remotely and self-reported by parents, which may introduce recall or social-desirability bias. The EBAI is a screening tool, not a diagnostic instrument; a score above the cutoff flags possible difficulty but does not confirm a feeding disorder. Assessment was limited to 12 months of age, so any effects on eating behaviour, texture acceptance, or selectivity that emerge later in childhood are not captured. Some intervention sessions were delivered remotely during the pandemic, which may have altered the quality of guidance compared with fully in-person delivery.

Funded by FIPE (grant 2019-0230). No industry sponsorship, no declaration that the funder designed the study or wrote the manuscript, and no competing-interest disclosures beyond the funding line.

Do not read the lower feeding-disorder count in the mixed-method group (2 children) as proof that the mixed method is superior. The overall comparison across all three methods was not statistically significant, and the authors' own Discussion frames the mixed group's result as a trend rather than a confirmed effect. With 40 to 45 children per arm, the study is not powered to detect small differences in a rare outcome.