Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27784101›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2016

Primary Care Interventions to Support Breastfeeding: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Carrie D Patnode, Michelle L Henninger, Caitlyn A Senger, Leslie A Perdue, Evelyn P Whitlock

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Breastfeeding interventions for preventing postpartum depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Global breastfeeding efforts: a long way to go.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Telelactation Within the Landscape of Breastfeeding Support: Experiences of Latina Parents.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2024
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Skilled lactation support using telemedicine in the neonatal intensive care unit.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carrie D PatnodeKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Michelle L HenningerKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Caitlyn A SengerKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Leslie A PerdueKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Evelyn P WhitlockKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon2Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS HHSA290201200015I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although 80% of infants in the United States start breastfeeding, only 22% are exclusively breastfed up to around 6 months as recommended by a number of professional organizations. Objective: To systematically review the evidence on the benefits and harms of breastfeeding interventions to support the US Preventive Services Task Force in updating its 2008 recommendation. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO for studies published in the English language between January 1, 2008, and September 25, 2015. Studies included in the previous review were re-evaluated for inclusion. Surveillance for new evidence in targeted publications was conducted through January 26, 2016. Study Selection: Review of randomized clinical trials and before-and-after studies with concurrent controls conducted in a developed country that evaluated a primary care-relevant breastfeeding intervention among mothers of full- or near-term infants. Of 211 full-text articles reviewed, 52 studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies were newly identified, and 21 studies were carried forward from the previous review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal of all provisionally included studies. Data were independently abstracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another. Main Outcomes and Measures: Child and maternal health outcomes, rates and duration of breastfeeding, and harms related to interventions as prespecified before data collection. Results: Fifty-two studies (n = 66 757) in 57 publications were included. Six trials (n = 2219) reported inconsistent effects of the interventions on infant health outcomes; no studies reported maternal health outcomes. Pooled estimates based on random-effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird method indicated beneficial associations between individual-level breastfeeding interventions and any breastfeeding for less than 3 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.11]; 26 studies [n = 11 588]), at 3 to less than 6 months (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.04-1.18]; 23 studies [n = 8942]), and for exclusive breastfeeding for less than 3 months (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.33]; 22 studies [n = 8246]), 3 to less than 6 months (RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.05-1.38]; 18 studies [n = 7027]), and at 6 months (RR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.02-1.32]; 17 studies [n = 7690]). Absolute differences in the rates of any breastfeeding ranged from 14.1% in favor of the control group to 18.4% in favor of the intervention group. There was no significant association between interventions and breastfeeding initiation (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.99-1.02]; 14 studies [n = 9428]). There was limited mixed evidence of an association between system-level interventions and rates of breastfeeding from well-controlled studies as well as for harms related to breastfeeding interventions, including maternal anxiety scores, decreased confidence, and concerns about confidentiality. Conclusions and Relevance: The updated evidence confirms that breastfeeding support interventions are associated with an increase in the rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding. There are limited well-controlled studies examining the effectiveness of system-level policies and practices on rates of breastfeeding or child health and none for maternal health.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesBreast FeedingPractice Guidelines as TopicControlled Before-After StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27784101
PMCPMC13475363
OpenAlexW2533756606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.