Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28746353›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Delayed breastfeeding initiation and infant survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emily R Smith, Lisa Hurt, Ranadip Chowdhury, Bireshwar Sinha, Wafaie Fawzi, Karen M Edmond, Neovita Study Group

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
161citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

161 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

101 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Emily R SmithDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5715-9459
Lisa HurtDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Wales, United Kingdom.
Ranadip ChowdhuryCentre for Health Research and Development, Society for Applied Studies, New Delhi, India.
Bireshwar SinhaCentre for Health Research and Development, Society for Applied Studies, New Delhi, India.
Wafaie FawziDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Karen M EdmondSchool of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Neovita Study Group

Funding

BIOSTATISTICS/EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING GRANTS IN AIDST32AI007358 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Michael David Hughes · 1989 to 2026
$12.4M
NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the existing evidence regarding breastfeeding initiation time and infant morbidity and mortality. STUDY

designWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Popline, LILACS, AIM, and Index Medicus to identify existing evidence. We included observational studies and randomized control trials that examined the association between breastfeeding initiation time and mortality, morbidity, or nutrition outcomes from birth through 12 months of age in a population of infants who all initiated breastfeeding. Two reviewers independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized form. We pooled effect estimates using fixed-effects meta-analysis.

resultsWe pooled five studies, including 136,047 infants, which examined the association between very early breastfeeding initiation and neonatal mortality. Compared to infants who initiated breastfeeding ≤1 hour after birth, infants who initiated breastfeeding 2-23 hours after birth had a 33% greater risk of neonatal mortality (95% CI: 13-56%, I2 = 0%), and infants who initiated breastfeeding ≥24 hours after birth had a 2.19-fold greater risk of neonatal mortality (95% CI: 1.73-2.77, I2 = 33%). Among the subgroup of infants exclusively breastfed in the neonatal period, those who initiated breastfeeding ≥24 hours after birth had an 85% greater risk of neonatal mortality compared to infants who initiated <24 hours after birth (95% CI: 29-167%, I2 = 33%).

conclusionsPolicy frameworks and models to estimate newborn and infant survival, as well as health facility policies, should consider the potential independent effect of early breastfeeding initiation.

Indexed as

Infant MortalityInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaBreast FeedingFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID28746353
PMCPMC5528898

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.