SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020
Vitamin D in Breastfed Infants: Systematic Review of Alternatives to Daily Supplementation.
Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Basal Vitamin D Status and Supplement Dose Are Primary Contributors to Maternal 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Response to Prenatal and Postpartum Cholecalciferol Supplementation.The Journal of nutrition · 2021Trial
- Review
- Early life nutrition in Nunavut, Canada: a retrospective descriptive study of food security, vitamin D and rickets.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Reference Values for Fat-Soluble Vitamins in Human Milk: The Mothers, Infants and Lactation Quality (MILQ) Study.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- 2024 edition of the Rourke Baby Record.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025Review
- Structural diversification of vitamin D using microbial biotransformations.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Pregnancy, Breastfeeding, and Vitamin D.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Vitamin D in pediatric age: Current evidence, recommendations, and misunderstandings.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Breastfeeding and vitamin D.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2022Article
- Different Vitamin D Supplementation Strategies in the First Years of Life: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Exclusive Breastfeeding and Vitamin D Supplementation: A Positive Synergistic Effect on Prevention of Childhood Infections?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- What are the effects of vitamin D supplementation for term breastfed infants to prevent vitamin D deficiency and improve bone health? - A Cochrane Review summary with commentary.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2021Article
- Association of serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D with Vitamin D intervention and outdoor activity among children in North China: an observational study.BMC pediatrics · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Daily oral vitamin D supplementation (400 IU) is recommended for breastfeeding infants (≤1 y). Recent studies have examined alternative approaches to preventing vitamin D deficiency in this population. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effects of maternal postpartum (M-PP) or infant intermittent (I-INT) vitamin D supplementation on infant 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations in comparison to routine direct infant daily (I-D) oral supplementation (400 IU). MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2018. Inclusion criteria consisted of published, peer-reviewed, vitamin D intervention trials involving lactating women and/or exclusively or partially breastfed term infants. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics (e.g., sample size, intervention dose, and duration and mode of administration) and related biochemical and clinical outcomes. Of 28 included trials, 5 randomized controlled trials were incorporated in meta-analyses examining infant 25(OH)D. Overall, M-PP supplementation resulted in modestly lower infant 25(OH)D compared with I-D supplementation (weighted mean difference = -8.1 nmol/L; 95% CI: -15.4, -0.9; I2 = 45%; P = 0.14; 3 trials), but the 2 most recent trials found M-PP to achieve similar infant 25(OH)D as I-D. Comparison of I-INT with I-D was confined to 2 trials with contradictory findings, and it was considered inappropriate for pooled analysis. Meta-analysis was therefore limited by a small number of eligible trials with variable quality of analytically derived 25(OH)D data and inconsistent reporting of safety outcomes, including effects on calcium homeostasis. Considering all 28 included trials, this systematic review highlights M-PP and I-INT regimens as plausible substitutes for routine daily infant vitamin D supplementation, but evidence remains too weak to support a policy update. Dose-ranging, adequately powered trials are required to establish the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of alternative strategies to prevent vitamin D deficiency in breastfeeding infants. This review was registered with PROSPERO as CRD42017069905.
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.