TABLE 2

Effect of the Intervention on Child Growth in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Eggs in Ecuador

BaselineEnd PointEffect Size or PREffect Size or PR
Control (n = 82)Egg (n = 78)Control (n = 73)Egg (n = 75)UnadjustedAdjusteda
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)β (95% CI)Pβ (95% CI)P
LAZ (SD)−1.71 (0.92)−2.09 (1.08)−1.71 (1.00)−1.39 (1.35).64 (0.40–0.89)<.001.63 (0.38–0.88)<.001
WAZ (SD)−0.40 (0.92)−0.91 (1.24)−0.55 (0.85)−0.34 (1.06).71 (0.53–0.90)<.001.61 (0.45–0.77)<.001
WLZ (SD)0.86 (0.99)0.55 (0.99)0.36 (0.81)0.45 (0.84).42 (0.20–0.65)<.001.33 (0.14–0.51)<.001
BMIz (SD)0.80 (1.00)0.42 (1.10)0.64 (0.82)0.68 (0.86).45 (0.20–0.70)<.001.29 (0.08–0.49).006
%%%%PR (95% CI)bPPR (95% CI)bP
Stunted26 (32)37 (47)29 (40)21 (28)0.70 (0.44–1.12).140.53 (0.37–0.77).001
Underweight4 (5)10 (13)5 (7)4 (5)0.78 (0.22–2.80).700.26 (0.10–0.70).008
  • Table shows results for end-point mean (SD) anthropometric measures and prevalence (no. [%], of undernutrition), as well as GLM modeling for unadjusted and adjusted effect size and PR for anthropometric outcomes, by group.

  • a Adjusted for child age, sex of the child, and baseline anthropometry for the same dependent variable.

  • b PR was estimated using GLM with robust Poisson.