Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32629970›Full record

ReviewNutrients2020

Infant Formula Supplemented with Biotics: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives.

Seppo Salminen, Bernd Stahl, Gabriel Vinderola, Hania Szajewska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Seppo SalminenFunctional Foods Forum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, 20520 Turku, Finland.
Bernd StahlDanone Nutricia Research, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gabriel VinderolaInstituto de Lactología Industrial (INLAIN, UNL-CONICET), Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santiago del Estero 2829, Santa Fe 3000, Argentina.
Hania SzajewskaDepartment of Paediatrics at the Medical University of Warsaw, 02091 Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breastfeeding is natural and the optimal basis of infant nutrition and development, with many benefits for maternal health. Human milk is a dynamic fluid fulfilling an infant's specific nutritional requirements and guiding the growth, developmental, and physiological processes of the infant. Human milk is considered unique in composition, and it is influenced by several factors, such as maternal diet and health, body composition, and geographic region. Human milk stands as a model for infant formula providing nutritional solutions for infants not able to receive enough mother's milk. Infant formulas aim to mimic the composition and functionality of human milk by providing ingredients reflecting those of the latest human milk insights, such as oligosaccharides, bacteria, and bacterial metabolites. The objective of this narrative review is to discuss the most recent developments in infant formula with a special focus on human milk oligosaccharides and postbiotics.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsFemaleHumansInfantInfant FormulaInfant, NewbornInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMaleMilk, HumanOligosaccharidesSynbioticsOligosaccharides2′-fucosyllactose (2′-FL)3'-galactosyllactose (3'-GL)breastfeedinghuman milk oligosaccharidesinfant formulalacto-N-neotetraose (LNnT)postbioticsprebioticsprobioticssynbiotics

Identifiers

PMID32629970
PMCPMC7400136

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.