RESUMO
A scoping review of publications about commercial milk formulas intended for or consumed by children 12-36 months (CMF 12-36) was conducted. This review aimed to comprehensively map the existing literature, identify key concepts in the field and understand its evolution through time. A total of 3329 articles were screened and 220 were included, published between 1986 and 2024. Most works were published after 2016 (70.0%) and in high-income countries (71.8%). Original studies were the vast majority (81.8%) of publications. Most publications dealt with feeding practices or analysed the composition and/or contamination of specific products (44.1% and 35.9%), but since the late 2000s, publications about marketing, policy, legislation, and consumer perception started to appear. Most published works (65.5%) did not focus exclusively on CMF 12-36 and included formulas for other demographics or other foods. About half of the works (55.5%) did not consider CMF 12-36 to be a breast milk substitute. We found 81 distinct product denominations used to refer to CMF 12-36, Growing Up Milk was the most common (25.9%). CMF industry was involved in 41.8% of all analysed works, and industry participation and funding were not always clearly informed (22.5% lacked a conflict of interest statement, and 25.5% did not present any information about funding). In the last decade, publications about CMF 12-36 have increased in volume and diversified in scope and subject matter. CMF-industry participation has always been and still is present in the field, so possible vested interests should be taken into account when appreciating the literature.
RESUMO
The use of scientific evidence to support the process of formulating and implementing public policies might be biased by studies funded by the pharmaceutical and food industry, which more often than not meet corporate interests. This review aimed to analyze the occurrence of conflict of interest (COI) in academic production regarding vitamin D and COVID-19, considering the facility offered during the pandemic for academic publications of heterogeneous quality. A scoping review of observational studies published in Medline, Lilacs, and Google Scholar databases was carried out. The selected studies were published between December 2019 and August 2021, focused on the relationship between vitamin D and prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in non-institutionalized individuals, with no language restrictions. Twenty-nine studies met eligibility criteria. COI was disclosed in five papers and further identified by review authors in eight other papers, meaning COI was present in thirteen papers (44.8%). Studies were funded by companies in the diagnostics, pharmaceutical and food sectors. Conclusions favorable to vitamin D supplementation were more prevalent in papers where COI was identified (9/13, 69.2%) than among papers where COI was not found (4/16, 25.0%). Omissions of disclosure of COI, funding source, and sponsor functions were observed. The identification of possible corporate political activities in scientific papers about vitamin D published during the COVID-19 pandemic signals a need for greater transparency and guideline development on the prevention of COI in scientific production.