Review explains how clinicians identify children with feeding disorders
The article summarizes screening, assessment, and referral guidance beyond the label of picky eating.
Moderate evidenceReviewSome caution advised
Medical disclaimer: This article summarizes research findings and is for informational purposes only. It is not medical advice.
Editorial illustration — not from the study.
The article addresses feeding difficulties that may involve more than food preferences alone. It reviews a 2019 expert consensus definition of pediatric feeding disorder and discusses a 2025 consensus about how this condition may overlap with, or differ from, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, also known as ARFID.
It also covers reported frequency, possible risk factors, differential diagnosis, assessment strategies, and referral considerations. A case example shows how the four-domain framework might be used in clinical practice, but the abstract does not provide results from a formal evaluation of that example or evidence that the article's approach improves outcomes.
What the review examined
The authors examined how pediatric healthcare providers can identify, screen for, assess, and refer children with pediatric feeding disorders in primary care. The work is described as a continuing-education review based on consensus definitions, existing screening tools, clinical assessment concepts, differential diagnosis, risk factors, and referral guidance. It includes a case-based example. The abstract does not state that the authors enrolled participants, compare groups, or conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis.
Key conclusions
The review reports that pediatric feeding disorders affect about 1 in 37 children under age 5 in the United States and are often underrecognized in primary care. It presents the consensus framework as spanning four areas: medical, nutritional, feeding skill, and psychosocial factors. It also describes the 2025 consensus as clarifying areas of overlap and distinction between pediatric feeding disorder and ARFID. The article states that early identification and intervention can be associated with improved nutritional status, oral-motor development, and mealtime experiences, but the abstract does not provide study results, effect sizes, or details showing how those outcomes were measured.
Who this is relevant to
The material is most directly relevant to children with possible feeding difficulties, particularly young children seen in primary care, and to clinicians who assess or refer them. Because this is a general review, its descriptions may not apply equally to every child, age group, diagnosis, or healthcare system. It should not be read as evidence that all children described as picky eaters have a pediatric feeding disorder or ARFID, and the abstract does not establish outcomes for any specific patient.
The significance
Feeding problems in young children can involve health, nutrition, eating skills, and family or emotional factors rather than food selectivity alone. A shared framework may help clinicians describe these different areas and consider when further assessment or referral is relevant. However, this article summarizes guidance and existing knowledge; it does not by itself establish that using the framework improves outcomes for every child.
Limitations & evidence assessment
The abstract gives limited information about how sources were selected, how the evidence was judged, or whether the review followed a systematic method. It does not report a new participant sample, a comparison group, follow-up period, or independently measured outcomes. The reported frequency and outcome statements are presented in the review, but their underlying study methods and certainty cannot be assessed from the available information. The case example illustrates application of the framework but is not evidence that the approach works across children or healthcare settings.
Why this evidence level: This is a continuing-education review of expert consensus definitions, screening tools, assessment approaches, and referral guidance rather than a new clinical trial or population study. Its information may help summarize current clinical thinking, but the abstract provides too little detail to independently assess how the evidence was gathered and evaluated.
Evidence levels are editorial estimates derived from study metadata — they are not clinical appraisals.
// Source
Journal of Pediatric Health Care · 2026 · DOI: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2026.05.011
Researchers combined individual patient data from 13 human studies involving 1,734 people with uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax malaria in Latin America. Recurrences within 150 days were less common among patients who received a higher total primaquine dose than among those who received a lower dose, but the study was not a single randomized trial and high-dose safety data were limited.
A scoping review examined vaginal fractional CO₂ laser therapy for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, a group of vaginal and urinary symptoms, among women with current or previous breast cancer. Across 22 reports involving approximately 1,099 participant observations, observational studies often reported symptom improvements, but two sham-controlled randomized trials did not find a clinically meaningful benefit over sham treatment. The findings are informational and do not establish whether this therapy is effective or safe over the long term.
Researchers analyzed Japanese health-insurance claims for people aged 75 or younger who had tooth extractions between April 2012 and March 2024. After dental antibiotic guidelines were introduced or updated, use of third-generation cephalosporins fell overall, especially in some hospitals and later in dental clinics; surgical-site infection rates did not change in the analysis. Because this was an observational study, the findings show patterns associated with the guidelines rather than proving that the guidelines alone caused them.
