2023
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287962
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standard RUTF vs. locally-made RUSF for acutely malnourished children: A quasi-experimental comparison of the impact on growth and compliance in a rural community of Pakistan

Abstract: Background The reduction in severe and moderate acute malnutrition (SAM and MAM) rates in Pakistan has been sub-optimal compared to other low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Specially-formulated products have been designed globally to manage SAM and MAM, such as ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) and ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF), with variable efficacies. RUTF is primarily produced and patented in industrialized countries, raising supply challenges in resource-constrained regions with a high b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 26 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3 and 4 ) seem to suggest a different representation of the results for weight gain, WHZ/WLZ in children aged between 6 and 35 months compared to those aged between 6 and 59 months old. Although the impact of RUSF seems larger in younger children for these outcomes, which has been confirmed in infants, ( 52 ) too few studies are available to draw any conclusions about the impact of age on the effect of RUSF. Overall, the included studies posed a high risk of bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…3 and 4 ) seem to suggest a different representation of the results for weight gain, WHZ/WLZ in children aged between 6 and 35 months compared to those aged between 6 and 59 months old. Although the impact of RUSF seems larger in younger children for these outcomes, which has been confirmed in infants, ( 52 ) too few studies are available to draw any conclusions about the impact of age on the effect of RUSF. Overall, the included studies posed a high risk of bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%