ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2020
Comparing saliva and urine samples for measuring breast milk intake with the
Article in The British journal of nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Breastfeeding Support Packages in Low- and Middle-Income Countries for Infants under Six Months: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Search of Height and Weight Changes of Exclusively Breastfed Infants Until 1 Year of age: A Contribution from the ConcePTION Project.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2025Review
- Human Milk output among mothers previously treated for severe acute malnutrition in childhood in Democratic Republic of Congo.BMC nutrition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Saliva and urine are the two main body fluids sampled when breast milk intake is measured with the 2H oxide dose-to-mother technique. However, these two body fluids may generate different estimates of breast milk intake due to differences in isotope enrichment. Therefore, we aimed to assess how the estimated amount of breast milk intake differs when based on saliva and urine samples and to explore whether the total energy expenditure of the mothers is related to breast milk output. We used a convenience sample of thirteen pairs of mothers and babies aged 2-4 months, who were exclusively breastfed and apparently healthy. To assess breast milk intake, we administered doubly labelled water to the mothers and collected saliva samples from them, while simultaneously collecting both saliva and urine from their babies over a 14-d period. Isotope ratio MS was used to analyse the samples for 2H and 18O enrichments. Mean breast milk intake based on saliva samples was significantly higher than that based on urine samples (854·5 v. 812·8 g/d, P = 0·029). This can be attributed to slightly higher isotope enrichments in saliva and to a poorer model fit for urine samples as indicated by a higher square root of the mean square error (14·6 v. 10·4 mg/kg, P = 0·001). Maternal energy expenditure was not correlated with breast milk output. Our study suggests that saliva sampling generates slightly higher estimates of breast milk intake and is more precise as compared with urine and that maternal energy expenditure does not influence breast milk output.
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.