ArticlePaediatrics & child health2010
Which method of breastfeeding supplementation is best? The beliefs and practices of paediatricians and nurses.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cup feeding versus other forms of supplemental enteral feeding for newborn infants unable to fully breastfeed.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Feeding Neonates by Cup: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Maternal and child health journal · 2016Pooled it
- Cup Feeding as a Supplemental, Alternative Feeding Method for Preterm Breastfed Infants: An Integrative Review.Maternal and child health journal · 2018Review
- Clarifying nipple confusion.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2015Review
- Letter to the editor.Paediatrics & child health · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of the present study were to assess the practices of breastfeeding supplementation methods, and to explore the opinions and beliefs of health professionals with regard to breastfeeding supplementation methods and the nipple confusion phenomenon. The study was cross-sectional in design, and participants were recruited from five hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. All of the nurses and attending paediatricians in postpartum floors and level II nurseries were invited to participate in the study. A total of 87 nurses and 16 paediatricians completed the survey questionnaire. Bottle feeding was the most common breastfeeding supplementation method used in the nurseries followed by cup feeding. Only 15.0% of the level II nurses agreed that frequent bottle feeds lead to the nipple confusion phenomenon, compared with 44.4% of the postpartum nurses and 56.2% of the paediatricians. Findings demonstrated considerable variation in the practices and beliefs surrounding supplementation methods. A randomized controlled trial comparing the safety, efficiency and subsequent breastfeeding rates of different breastfeeding supplementation methods is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.