The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Thickened-Feed Interventions on Gastroesophageal Reflux in Infants: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials
Abstract
CONTEXT. Currently, thickened feeds are increasingly being used to treat infants with gastroesophageal reflux, driven in large part by the baby food industry. Previous meta-analyses have shown that although thickened formulas do not seem to reduce measurable reflux, they may reduce vomiting. However, because data are limited, there is still uncertainty regarding the use of thickening agents. OBJECTIVE. Our goal was to systematically evaluate and update data from randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of thickened feeds for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux in healthy infants. METHODS. The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases and proceedings of the European and North American pediatric gastroenterology conferences (from 2000) were searched in May 2008; additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Only randomized, controlled trials that evaluated thickened feeds used in infants for at least several days for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux were considered for inclusion. Three reviewers independently performed data extraction by using standard data-extraction forms. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussion between all authors. Only the consensus data were entered. RESULTS. Fourteen randomized, controlled trials with a parallel or crossover design, some with methodologic limitations, were included. Use of thickened formulas compared with standard formula significantly increased the percentage of infants with no regurgitation, slightly reduced the number of episodes of regurgitation and vomiting per day (assessed jointly or separately), and increased weight gain per day; it had no effect on the reflux index, number of acid gastroesophageal reflux episodes per hour, or number of reflux episodes lasting >5 minutes but significantly reduced the duration of the longest reflux episode of pH < 4. No definitive data showed that one particular thickening agent is more effective than another. No serious adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS. This meta-analysis shows that thickened food is only moderately effective in treating gastroesophageal reflux in healthy infants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Cited by
Gastroesophageal reflux in children: an updated review
Leung, A. K., & Hon, K. L. (2019) · Drugs in Context · doi:10.7573/dic.212591 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Horvath, A., Dziechciarz, P., & Szajewska, H.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2008-12-01
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e1268-e1277
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2062248601
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effect of Thickened-Feed Interventions on Gastroesophageal Reflux in Infants: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.2008-1900
- The paper
- Horvath, A., Dziechciarz, P., & Szajewska, H. (2008). The Effect of Thickened-Feed Interventions on Gastroesophageal Reflux in Infants: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-1900
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.