OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and energy intake of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF) with cereal legume based khichri among malnourished children. DESIGN: An acceptability trial with cross-over design. SETTING:Urban low to middle socioeconomic neighbor-hoods in Delhi. SUBJECTS:31 children aged > or =6 to < or =36 months with malnutrition, defined as Weight for height (WHZ) < -2 to > or = -3 SD, with no clinical signs of infection or edema. INTERVENTION: Children were offered weighed amounts of RUTF and khichri in unlimited amounts for 2 days, one meal of each on both days. Water was fed on demand. Caregivers interviews and observations were conducted on the second day. OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability of RUTF compared to khichri based on direct observation and energy intake for test and control meals. RESULTS: The proportion of children who accepted RUTF eagerly was 58% as against 77% for khichri. 42% children on RUTF and 23% on khichri accepted the meal but not eagerly. The median (IQR) energy intake over the two day period in children aged 6 to 36 months from RUTF was 305 (153, 534) kcal, and from khichri was 242 (150, 320) kcal (P=0.02). CONCLUSION:RUTF and khichri were both well accepted by study children. The energy intake from RUTF was higher due to its extra energy density.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and energy intake of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF) with cereal legume based khichri among malnourished children. DESIGN: An acceptability trial with cross-over design. SETTING: Urban low to middle socioeconomic neighbor-hoods in Delhi. SUBJECTS: 31 children aged > or =6 to < or =36 months with malnutrition, defined as Weight for height (WHZ) < -2 to > or = -3 SD, with no clinical signs of infection or edema. INTERVENTION: Children were offered weighed amounts of RUTF and khichri in unlimited amounts for 2 days, one meal of each on both days. Water was fed on demand. Caregivers interviews and observations were conducted on the second day. OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability of RUTF compared to khichri based on direct observation and energy intake for test and control meals. RESULTS: The proportion of children who accepted RUTF eagerly was 58% as against 77% for khichri. 42% children on RUTF and 23% on khichri accepted the meal but not eagerly. The median (IQR) energy intake over the two day period in children aged 6 to 36 months from RUTF was 305 (153, 534) kcal, and from khichri was 242 (150, 320) kcal (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: RUTF and khichri were both well accepted by study children. The energy intake from RUTF was higher due to its extra energy density.