Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29677187›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2018

Breastfeeding during infancy and neurocognitive function in adolescence: 16-year follow-up of the PROBIT cluster-randomized trial.

Seungmi Yang, Richard M Martin, Emily Oken, Mikhail Hameza, Glen Doniger, Shimon Amit, Rita Patel, Jennifer Thompson, Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman, Konstantin Vilchuck and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01561612 (Breastfeeding Promotion RCT and Child Metabolic Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT01561612 nacompletednot on this map

Breastfeeding Promotion RCT and Child Metabolic Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorHarvard Pilgrim Health CareRan1996Enrolled17,046ConditionsEffect of Breastfeeding on Maternal and Child Health OutcomesArmsBreastfeeding promotion and support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Computerized Cognitive Test Batteries for Children and Adolescents-A Scoping Review of Tools For Lab- and Web-Based Settings From 2000 to 2021.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

12 authors.

Seungmi YangDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1189-6821
Richard M MartinSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7992-7719
Emily OkenDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Mikhail HamezaNational Research and Applied Medicine Mother and Child Centre, Minsk, Republic of Belarus.
Glen DonigerNeuroTrax Corporation, Medina, New York, United States of America.
Shimon AmitNeuroTrax Corporation, Medina, New York, United States of America.
Rita PatelSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jennifer ThompsonDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sheryl L Rifas-ShimanDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Konstantin VilchuckNational Research and Applied Medicine Mother and Child Centre, Minsk, Republic of Belarus.
Natalia BogdanovichNational Research and Applied Medicine Mother and Child Centre, Minsk, Republic of Belarus.
Michael S KramerDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

Breastfeeding RCT: Adolescent Neurocognitive and Respiratory FunctionR01HD050758 · NICHD · HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC. · PI MARTIN, RICHARD MICHAEL, OKEN, EMILY · 2007 to 2014
$3.0M
CIHR MOP-53155Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1-9NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD050758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence on the long-term effect of breastfeeding on neurocognitive development is based almost exclusively on observational studies. In the 16-year follow-up study of a large, cluster-randomized trial of a breastfeeding promotion intervention, we evaluated the long-term persistence of the neurocognitive benefits of the breastfeeding promotion intervention previously observed at early school age. METHODS AND

findingsA total of 13,557 participants (79.5% of the 17,046 randomized) of the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT) were followed up at age 16 from September 2012 to July 2015. At the follow-up, neurocognitive function was assessed in 7 verbal and nonverbal cognitive domains using a computerized, self-administered test battery among 13,427 participants. Using an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis as our prespecified primary analysis, we estimated cluster- and baseline characteristic-adjusted mean differences between the intervention (prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding promotion modelled on the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative) and control (usual care) groups in 7 cognitive domains and a global cognitive score. In our prespecified secondary analysis, we estimated mean differences by instrumental variable (IV) analysis to account for noncompliance with the randomly assigned intervention and estimate causal effects of breastfeeding. The 16-year follow-up rates were similar in the intervention (79.7%) and control groups (79.3%), and baseline characteristics were comparable between the two. In the cluster-adjusted ITT analyses, children in the intervention group did not show statistically significant differences in the scores from children in the control group. Prespecified additional adjustment for baseline characteristics improved statistical precision and resulted in slightly higher scores among children in the intervention for verbal function (1.4 [95% CI 0.3-2.5]) and memory (1.2 [95% CI 0.01-2.4]). IV analysis showed that children who were exclusively breastfed for ≥3 (versus <3) months had a 3.5-point (95% CI 0.9-6.1) higher verbal function, but no differences were observed in other domains. While our computerized, self-administered cognitive testing reduced the cluster-level variability in the scores, it may have increased individual-level measurement errors in adolescents.

conclusionsWe observed no benefit of a breastfeeding promotion intervention on overall neurocognitive function. The only beneficial effect was on verbal function at age 16. The higher verbal ability is consistent with results observed at early school age; however, the effect size was substantially smaller in adolescence. PROBIT

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01561612.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingAdolescentAdolescent DevelopmentAdultCluster AnalysisCognitionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntention to Treat AnalysisMalePsychology, AdolescentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29677187
PMCPMC5909901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.