BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Systematic Reviews
©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026.
World J Clin Pediatr. Mar 9, 2026; 15(1): 111066
Published online Mar 9, 2026. doi: 10.5409/wjcp.v15.i1.111066
Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Ref.
Age
Intervention
Comparator
Outcome
Main results
Hill et al[10], 19954-16 weeks19 infants -hydrolysate formula (casein based)19 infants -regular cow's milk formulaCrying time reduction61% positive in intervention (12/19)- 43% in comparator (8/19)
Lucassen et al[11], 2000< 6 months20 infants -hydrolysate formula (whey based)18 infants - regular cow's milk formulaCrying time reduction13/20 positive in the intervention group - 6/18 in the comparator
Xinias et al[12], 201720-60 days40 infants - hydrolysate formula (whey based)20 infants -regular cow's milk formulaCrying time reduction40/40 positive in intervention group - 13/20 in the comparator
Oggero et al[13], 19943-12 weeks15 infants -Hydrolysate formula60 infants - dicyclomineCrying time reduction13/15 positive in intervention group - 34/60 in comparator group
Jakobsson et al[14], 20002-8 weeks14 infants -hydrolysate formula (CH1-CH2)Same infants (13) (another time period) - Regular cow's milk formulaDecrease in crying time11/14 positive in intervention group - 2/13 in comparator group
Forsyth[16], 19890-8 weeks17 infants -Hydrolysate formula17 infants - regular cow's milk formulaDecrease in crying time20/51 in intervention group (out of a total of 51 formula changes from regular cow milk formula to eHF, 20 had a favorable result) - 7/51 in comparator group