Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-EGG-105 in-depth review
One egg a day helped babies in Ecuador grow
Eggs in Early Complementary Feeding and Child Growth: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Overview
Iannotti LL et al.. Pediatrics 2017 · PMID 28588101 · DOI 10.1542/peds.2016-3459
Babies given an egg daily for 6 months had less stunting (PR 0.53) and no reported allergic reactions.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Test eggs for child growth.
- How was the study done?
Randomized trial.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
163 infants aged 6-9 months.
- What was actually found?
Better length and weight; less stunting.
- How large was the observed effect?
LAZ +0.63; stunting -47%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Eggs can be a safe and useful food for babies.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, unblinded; not replicated in Malawi.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the idea that eggs are harmful for children.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Limited (different nutrition context).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot prove eggs improve growth everywhere.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Iannotti LL et al.
- Journal
- Pediatrics
- Year
- 2017
- Identifier
- PMID 28588101 DOI 10.1542/peds.2016-3459
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref works API 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Funded by The Mathile Institute (not-for-profit); two authors worked for the funder.
2. Research question
Does introducing one egg per day early in complementary feeding improve child growth?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial – Randomized controlled trial (Lulun Project), 6 months
- Population
Children aged 6-9 months, Cotopaxi Province, Ecuador
- Country
Ecuador
- Period
March-December 2015
- Sample size
163 (83 egg, 80 control)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
not detailed in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
1 egg per day for 6 months
- Comparator
No intervention (both arms received social marketing messages)
- Endpoints
Length-for-age and weight-for-age z scores, stunting, underweight, morbidity, dietary intake
- Statistical methods
Generalized linear regression; log-binomial models with robust Poisson
5. Actual results
- Results
Egg group: length-for-age z +0.63 (95% CI 0.38-0.88); weight-for-age z +0.61 (0.45-0.77); stunting PR 0.53 (0.37-0.77); underweight PR 0.26 (0.10-0.70); reduced intake of sugar-sweetened foods PR 0.71 (0.51-0.97). Caregivers reported no allergic reactions to the eggs.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
Early introduction of eggs significantly improved growth in young children.
6. Strengths
- Randomized design
- Weekly monitoring of intake and morbidity
7. Weaknesses
- Not blinded; small sample
- Single region; larger effect than the later Malawi trial
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- RoB 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Open-label; outcome measurement by staff; simplified judgement.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Large effect sizes; the Mazira trial in Malawi (I-EGG-106) did not replicate them, and the WHO pooled analysis of both trials found no significant effect.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Direct test of daily eggs in infants: no harm and no allergic reactions were reported; growth improved.
11. Independent contrary findings
Malawi trial null for growth (I-EGG-106).
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Low-income setting with high stunting; Egypt has relevant child stunting levels (not quantified here).
13. Overall methodological judgement
Shows eggs were well tolerated and beneficial in one setting; not a general proof of growth benefit.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | not replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | inconsistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Replication across settings.
15. Linked fact checks
- All eggs (chicken, quail, pigeon, ostrich, etc.) are harmful because an egg is an embryo / contains the 'full components of a living organism'. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim