| Literature DB >> 35276891 |
Marina Roberts1, Terezie Tolar-Peterson1, Abby Reynolds1, Caitlin Wall1, Nicole Reeder1, Gina Rico Mendez2.
Abstract
The developing human brain requires all essential nutrients to form and to maintain its structure. Infant and child cognitive development is dependent on adequate nutrition. Children who do not receive sufficient nutrition are at high risk of exhibiting impaired cognitive skills. This systematic review aimed to examine the effects of nutritional interventions on cognitive outcomes of preschool-age children. PubMed, PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published after the year 2000. Studies assessing the effects of food-based, single, and multiple micronutrient interventions on the cognition of nourished and undernourished children aged 2-6 years were deemed eligible. A total of 12 trials were identified. Eight out of the twelve studies found significant positive effects on cognitive outcomes. Iron and multiple-micronutrients supplementation yield improvements in the cognitive abilities of undernourished preschool-age children. Increased fish consumption was found to have a beneficial effect in the cognitive outcomes of nourished children. On the other hand, B-vitamin, iodized salt, and guava powder interventions failed to display significant results. Findings of this review highlight the importance of adequate nutrition during preschool years, and the crucial role sufficient nutrition plays in cognitive development.Entities:
Keywords: child development; cognition; nutrition; preschool
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35276891 PMCID: PMC8839299 DOI: 10.3390/nu14030532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
PICO framework: keywords.
| Population | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preschool children | Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) food fortification, supplement-based, or food-based nutritional interventions | Placebo or control group | Cognitive outcomes using cognitive assessment tests |
Figure 1Study Selection Flow Diagram.
Search Strategy used for each electronic database.
| Database | Searched Terms |
|---|---|
| PubMed | (nutrient OR nutrition OR micronutrient OR macronutrient OR diet OR dietary OR “food intake” OR “meal diversity”) AND (“child development” OR cognition OR focus OR brain OR attentiveness OR attention OR memory OR verbal OR vocabulary OR learning OR literacy OR neuro* OR problem-solving OR reasoning OR “school performance” OR “school achievement” OR “academic achievement” OR “educational measurement” OR “academic success” OR “academic performance”) AND (randomized controlled trial [pt] OR controlled clinical trial [pt] OR randomized [tiab] OR placebo [tiab] OR clinical trials OR randomly [tiab] OR trial [ti]) AND (child OR children OR preschool OR “pre-school”) |
| CENTRAL | (nutrient* OR nutrition* OR micronutrient* OR macronutrient* OR diet* OR “food intake” OR “meal diversity”) AND (“child development” OR cognition OR focus OR brain OR attentiveness OR attention OR memory OR verbal OR vocabulary OR learning OR literacy OR neuro* OR problem-solving OR reasoning OR “school performance” OR “school achievement” OR “academic achievement” OR “educational measurement”) AND (child OR children OR preschool OR “pre-school”) |
| PsycInfo and Academic Search Complete | (nutrient* OR nutrition* OR micronutrient* OR macronutrient* OR diet* OR “food intake” OR “meal diversity”) AND (“child development” OR cognition OR focus OR brain OR attentiveness OR attention OR memory OR verbal OR vocabulary OR learning OR literacy OR neuro* OR problem-solving OR reasoning OR “school performance” OR “school achievement” OR “academic achievement” OR “educational measurement”) AND (random* OR control* OR trial* OR placebo* OR “double-blind”) AND (child OR children OR preschool OR “pre-school”) |
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
| Criteria | Study Design | Population | Intervention | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Include | RCTs | Preschool Children | Nutritional intervention including food-based, single, and multiple micronutrient supplementation intervention/s | Cognitive outcomes measured using cognitive assessment tests |
| Healthy children and children suffering from undernutrition, anemia, parasitic infections, or HIV | Nutritional intervention/s provided after the first 1000days and in children <6 years of age | Cognition was measured after the first 1000 days or in children <6 years of age | ||
| All other study designs and animal studies | Newborns, infants, primary school-aged children, adolescents, adults, elderly | Nutritional intervention/s not provided to preschool-aged children | Cognitive outcomes not measured in preschool-aged children | |
| Exclude | Children with specific diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, phenylketonuria, autism, and gluten-related neurological disorders |
Overview of the twelve RCTs exploring the effects of nutritional interventions on the cognitive development of preschool age children.
| Reference, Year, Country | Sample Size | Age | Subject Characteristics at Baseline | Intervention Group/s | Control Group/s | Duration | Cognitive Tests | Cognitive Domain Assessed | Major Cognitive Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rauh-Pfeiffer et al. [ | 250 | 4–6 y | Urban area, high socioeconomic status, healthy children with low but not insuficient total folate catabolite concentrations (<34 nmol/mmol creatinine) | Children received flavorless powder containing folic acid (220 μg), riboflavin (1.1 mg), pyridoxine (0.73 mg), cobalamin (1.2 μg) and calcium lactate pentahydrate (130 mg) | Children received flavorless powder in sachets matching the intervention product in taste and appearance containing only 130 mg of calcium | 3 months | WPPSI-III | Verbal I.Q., short-term memory, and processing speed | No significant difference between groups |
| Aboud et al. [ | 1602 | 4–6 y | Rural, low socioeconomic status, two control and four intervention districts had high UIC levels at baseline | Children had access to iodized salt for 8 to 10 months. Children received iodized salt via assistance from regular salt distributors | Children had access to non-iodized salt for 4 months, and 4 to 6 months of iodized salt. Iodized salt was introduced by market forces | 10 months | WPPSI | Verbal and nonverbal reasoning, and school readiness | No significant difference between groups |
| Demmelmair et al. [ | 205 | 4–6 y | Urban area, high socioeconomic status, healthy children | Children received three meals weekly containing 50 g Atlantic salmon per meal | Children received three meals weekly containing 50 g of meat per meal | 4 months | WPPSI-III & 9-HPT | Fine-motor skills, verbal reasoning, vocabulary, word and matrix reasoning, picture concepts, processing speed, coding, and symbol search | Intervention children displayed superior outcomes in WPPSI-III FIQ and PIQ. No significant changes were found in the WPPSI-III I.Q. scale scores between groups |
| Choudhury et al. [ | 352 | 3–5 y | Rural, low socioeconomic status, ICDS beneficiaries only, and children with hemoglobin concentration >7 g/dL | Children received 25 g of guava with a supplementary meal (guava group) or 25 g of banana with a meal (banana group) | Children did not receive any fruits with the meal (cucumber was given with meal if caregivers of participants wished) | 8 months | MSEL | Visual reception, expressive language development, and fine-motor coordination | No significant difference between groups |
| Øyen et al. [ | 232 | 4–6 y | Urban area, high socioeconomic status, healthy children | Children received three lunch meals per week with fatty fish (herring/mackerel), with a mean (SD) of 15.2 (14.2) mg/g EPA + DHA | Children received three lunch meals per week with meat (chicken/lamb/beef) with mean (SD) of 0.21 (0.15) mg/g EPA + DHA | 4 months | WPPSI-III & 9-HPT | Fine-motor skills, verbal reasoning, vocabulary, word and matrix reasoning, picture concepts, processing speed, coding, and symbol search | Intervention children improved speed of processing and fine-motor coordination in a sub-analysis adjusting for dietary compliance. No significant difference was found between in main analysis of total I.Q. scores (WPPSI-III) |
| Schneider et al. [ | 192 | 3–5 y | Urban, an upper middle-income country, children with a below-average level of stimulation at home, normal cognitive development, and weight for height within 2 SD from the median z-score | Children consumed milk powder (477.7kcal) fortified with zinc (8), iron (11.4), magnesium (141), thiamin (1), niacin (11), pyridoxine (1.7), biotin (0.0177), Vitamin C (97.3), AHA (556.6) mg/100 g, and performed psychosocial stimulation 3 times a week | Children consumed 72 g of unfortified skimmed milk powder diluted in 180 mL of warm water (467.8 kcal) and did not receive psychosocial stimulation | 6 months | WPPSI-IV, CBCL 1.5–5 & PICCOLO | Cognitive functioning, cognitive development, memory, language, psychomotor skills, problem-solving, and attention | Children in the intervention group displayed increased cognitive performance and full-scale I.Q. composite score (WPPSI-IV), and reduction in attention problems (CBCL 1.5–5) |
| Metallinos-Katsaras et al. [ | 124 | 3–4 y | Urban, high-income country, children with birth weight ≥ 2500 g, I.Q. ≥ 1 s.d. below the age-adjusted mean, blood Pb ≤ 200 ppb, weight and head circumference for the age ≥ 10th percentile | Children received 15 mg of iron and a multivitamins supplement (MV) five days per week at their respective day care center | Children received only the multivitamins supplement (MV) five days per week at their respective day care center | 2 months | Simple reaction time test, CPT & O.L. tasks | Speed of information processing, speed of discrimination, the accuracy of discrimination, and rate of conceptual learning | Iron-deficient children who received iron supplementation showed 14% increase in discrimination speed and 8% improvement in the accuracy domain. No effects in cognitive functioning were seen in good iron status children |
| Ogunlade et al. [ | 151 | 3–6.5 y | Urban, low socioeconomic status, children with Hb ≤ 12.5 g/dl, all children received anthelmintic | Children consumed 35 g of stiff maize-meal porridge with added micronutrient powder (8 g) containing amylase-rich light malted barley flour 5 days per week | Children consumed 28 g of soft maize-meal with added placebo powder (8 g) 5 days per week | 2.7 months | MPI, KABC-II, Atlantis & NVI | Learning abilities, sequential and simultaneous processing, and intellectual functioning | Intervention children showed significantly higher conceptual thinking abilities, higher MPI and NVI scores |
| Ryan and Nelson [ | 175 | 4 y | High-income country, healthy children consuming <6 oz of fish per week, English speakers, between 10th and 95th percentiles for weight and height, and currently not taking LC-PUFA supplements or consuming LC-PUFA fortified foods | Children received 400 mg of DHA supplementation as two 200-mg bubblegum-flavored softgel chewable | Children received capsules or placebo of high-oleic sunflower oil supplied as 2 soft capsules | 4 months | PPVT & kCPT | Memory, attention, vocabulary, processing speed, response time, listening skills, and verbal ability | There was no significant difference between groups in Leiter-R Test of Sustained Attention, (PPVT), Day-Night Stroop Test, and (kCPT). Regression analysis showed a significant positive association between levels of DHA in capillary whole blood and improved listening comprehension and vocabulary (PPVT) |
| Black et al. [ | 321 | 3–5 y | Rural, low socioeconomic status, children living in a district with prevalence of anemia >70%, >50% of children consumed <50% of the recommended intake of several essential micronutrients, high-quality and low-quality preschools were included | Children received 300g of cooked food fortified with MNP (13 mg iron, 5 mg zinc, 20 μg | Children received 300 g of cooked food containing 0.5 mg riboflavin (no effects on outcome measures) | 8 months | MSEL & BSID-III | Fine motor skills, gross motor skills, visual reception, receptive language, expressive language, and social-emotional behaviors | For children attending low-quality preschools, MNP fortification |
| Kvestad et al. [ | 232 | 4–6 y | High-income country, healthy children with no food allergies | Children received lunch meals containing 50–80 g of fatty fish (herring/mackerel) three times per week | Children received lunch meals containing 50–80 g of meat (chicken/lamb/beef) three times per week | 4 months | WPPSI-III | Information, vocabulary, block design, word and matrix reasoning, picture concepts, coding, and symbol search | No significant difference between groups |
| Roberts et al. [ | 1059 | 1.3–7 y | Rural, low socioeconomic status, children living in one of the 10 rural villages in the Oio and Cacheu regions of Guinea-Bissau, children with severe acute malnutrition or relevant food allergies were excluded from the study | One group of children received NEWSUP (≈310 kcal) for breakfast as a raw paste containing 98% of recommended daily micronutrients for children under 4 y, the second group received FBF (≈310 kcal) for breakfast served as a corn soy blend with cooked porridge, fortified oil, sugar, and salt containing an average of 16% recommended daily micronutrients | Children received white rice cooked in water, soybean oil, and salt (≈310 kcal) containing an average of 1% of recommended daily micronutrients | 5.7 months | Working Memory Task Test | Working memory | Intervention children younger than 4y receiving NEWSUP displayed increased working memory compared to control children |
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs); Wechsler Pre-school and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI); Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC); Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.); Urine Iodine Concentration (UIC); 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT); Full Scale I.Q. (FIQ); Performance Intelligence Quotient (PIQ); Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS); Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL); Standard Deviation (SD); Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA); Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA); Calories (kcal); Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL); Parenting Interactions with Children: Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO); Multivitamin (MV); Cognitive Performance Test (CPT); Oddity Learning (O.L.); Multidimensional Prognostic; Index (MPI); Nonverbal Index (NVI); Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs); Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs); Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT); Conners Kiddie; Continuous Performance Test (kCPT); Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID); Multiple-micronutrient (MMN); Point-of-use multiple micronutrient powder (MNP). y: years old.
Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC; risk of bias) assessment of each study included in the review [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66].
| First Author, Year of Publication (Reference) | Rauh-Pfeiffer, 2014 [ | Demmelmair, 2019 [ | Ogunlade, 2011 [ | Choudhury, 2021 [ | Black, 2021 [ | Kvestad, 2018 [ | Roberts, 2020 [ | Katsaras, 2004 [ | Aboud, 2017 [ | Øyen, 2018 [ | Schneider, 2018 [ | Ryan, 2008 [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Research QCC | ||||||||||||
| 1. Was the research question clearly stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Were study groups comparable? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
| 4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y |
| 5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y |
| 6. Were intervention/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| 8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 9. Were conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | N | Y |
| OVERALL QUALITY | (+) | (+) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (+) |
Plus/positive (+); neutral (Ø).