Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32391870›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2020

Guidance for the Conduct and Reporting of Clinical Trials of Breast Milk Substitutes.

Katharine Jarrold, Bartosz Helfer, Mona Eskander, Helen Crawley, Jillian Trabulsi, Laura E Caulfield, Gillian Duffy, Vanessa Garcia-Larsen, Deborah Hayward, Matthew Hyde and 14 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Allergy education and training for physicians.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021
    Review
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

24 authors at 15 institutions in 7 countries.

Katharine JarroldNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Bartosz HelferNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mona EskanderBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Food Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Helen CrawleyFirst Steps Nutrition Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Jillian TrabulsiDepartment of Behavioral Health and Nutrition, University of Delaware, Newark.
Laura E CaulfieldCenter for Human Nutrition, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gillian DuffyDepartment of Public Health Nutrition Standards, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Canberra, Australia.
Vanessa Garcia-LarsenCenter for Human Nutrition, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Deborah HaywardBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Food Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Matthew HydeSection of Neonatal Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Suzan JeffriesNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mikael KnipChildren's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jo Leonardi-BeeMedical Statistics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth LoderResearch, British Medical Journal , London, United Kingdom.
Caroline J LodgeAllergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Adrian J LoweAllergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
William McGuireCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
David OsbornDivision of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Hildegard PrzyrembelDepartment of Food Safety, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Mary J RenfrewMother and Infant Research Unit, University of Dundee School of Nursing and Health Sciences, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Paula TrumboNutrition Programs, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
John WarnerNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Barbara SchneemanDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis.
Robert J BoyleNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBHealth Canada · CAJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Nottingham · GBBritish Medical Association · GBFederal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Delaware · USUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Sydney · AUUniversity of York · GBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Breast milk substitutes (BMS) are important nutritional products evaluated in clinical trials. Concerns have been raised about the risk of bias in BMS trials, the reliability of claims that arise from such trials, and the potential for BMS trials to undermine breastfeeding in trial participants. Existing clinical trial guidance does not fully address issues specific to BMS trials. Objectives: To establish new methodological criteria to guide the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of BMS trials and to support clinical trialists designing and undertaking BMS trials, editors and peer reviewers assessing trial reports for publication, and regulators evaluating the safety, nutritional adequacy, and efficacy of BMS products. Design, Setting, and Participants: A modified Delphi method was conducted, involving 3 rounds of anonymous questionnaires and a face-to-face consensus meeting between January 1 and October 24, 2018. Participants were 23 experts in BMS trials, BMS regulation, trial methods, breastfeeding support, infant feeding research, and medical publishing, and were affiliated with institutions across Europe, North America, and Australasia. Guidance development was supported by an industry consultation, analysis of methodological issues in a sample of published BMS trials, and consultations with BMS trial participants and a research ethics committee. Results: An initial 73 criteria, derived from the literature, were sent to the experts. The final consensus guidance contains 54 essential criteria and 4 recommended criteria. An 18-point checklist summarizes the criteria that are specific to BMS trials. Key themes emphasized in the guidance are research integrity and transparency of reporting, supporting breastfeeding in trial participants, accurate description of trial interventions, and use of valid and meaningful outcome measures. Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of this guidance should enhance the quality and validity of BMS trials, protect BMS trial participants, and better inform the infant nutrition community about BMS products.

Indexed as

ConsensusBreast FeedingChecklistClinical Trials as TopicDelphi TechniqueFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantMilk SubstitutesRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32391870
PMCPMC7215627
OpenAlexW3021064298

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.