Complementary feeding introduction methods and pediatric feeding disorder in the first year of life: a randomized clinical trial.
Letícia Cristine Welke, Adriela Azevedo Souza Mariath, Juliana Rombaldi Bernardi and 2 others
A randomized trial of 128 infants found no significant difference in feeding-disorder scores at 12 months between three ways of introducing solids.
The method you recommend to parents does not appear to change feeding outcomes in the first year.
Key findings
1No statistically significant difference in overall feeding-disorder scores (EBAI) was found between the three complementary feeding methods.
2Feeding disorder was identified in 16 children (12.5%), with the lowest count in the mixed-method group (2 children, 1.6%).
3No significant differences were found between the three methods on any of the 14 individual feeding-behavior items of the screening scale.
to read the rest of this summary — three full summaries a month, no card.
Already have an account?
What it does not show
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.
Declared interests
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.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →