Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28003540›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of nutrition2017

Following the World Health Organization's Recommendation of Exclusive Breastfeeding to 6 Months of Age Does Not Impact the Growth of Rural Gambian Infants.

Kamilla G Eriksen, William Johnson, Bakary Sonko, Andrew M Prentice, Momodou K Darboe, Sophie E Moore

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Maternal readiness for weaning: Influencing factors and determinants.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kamilla G EriksenMedical Research Council (MRC) Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom; kamilla.eriksen@mrc-ewl.cam.ac.uk.
William JohnsonMedical Research Council (MRC) Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Bakary SonkoMRC Unit The Gambia, Banjul, The Gambia.
Andrew M PrenticeMRC Unit The Gambia, Banjul, The Gambia.
Momodou K DarboeMRC Unit The Gambia, Banjul, The Gambia.
Sophie E MooreMRC Unit The Gambia, Banjul, The Gambia.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/M01424X/1Medical Research Council MC_U123292701Medical Research Council MC_UP_1005/1Medical Research Council MR/P012019/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for the first 6 mo of life.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the benefit of EBF to age 6 mo on growth in a large sample of rural Gambian infants at high risk of undernutrition.

methodsInfants with growth monitoring from birth to 2 y of age (n = 756) from the ENID (Early Nutrition and Immune Development) trial were categorized as exclusively breastfed if only breast milk and no other liquids or foods were given. EBF status was entered into confounder-adjusted multilevel models to test associations with growth trajectories by using >11,000 weight-for-age (WAZ), length-for-age (LAZ), and weight-for-length (WLZ) z score observations.

resultsThirty-two percent of infants were exclusively breastfed to age 6 mo. The mean age of discontinuation of EBF was 5.2 mo, and growth faltering started at ∼3.5 mo of age. Some evidence for a difference in WAZ and WHZ was found between infants who were exclusively breastfed to age 6 mo (EBF-6) and those who were not (nEBF-6), at 6 and 12 mo of age, with EBF-6 children having a higher mean z score. The differences in z scores between the 2 groups were small in magnitude (at 6 mo of age: 0.147 WAZ; 95% CI: -0.001, 0.293 WAZ; 0.189 WHZ; 95% CI: 0.038, 0.341 WHZ). No evidence for a difference between EBF-6 and nEBF-6 infants was observed for LAZ at any time point (6, 12, and 24 mo of age). Furthermore, a higher mean WLZ at 3 mo of age was associated with a subsequent higher mean age at discontinuation of EBF, which implied reverse causality in this setting (coefficient: 0.060; 95% CI: 0.008, 0.120).

conclusionThis study suggests that EBF to age 6 mo has limited benefit to the growth of rural Gambian infants. This trial was registered at http://www.isrctn.com as ISRCTN49285450.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaWorld Health OrganizationChild DevelopmentDietary ProteinsDietary SupplementsEnergy IntakeFemaleFolic AcidGambiaHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIronMaleMaternal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaDietary ProteinsFolic AcidIronMicronutrientsexclusive breastfeedinginfant feeding practicemultilevel modellingpostnatal growthreverse causalityThe Gambia

Identifiers

PMID28003540
PMCPMC5265696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.