Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33528106›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2021

A systematic review of economic evaluations for donor human milk versus standard feeding in infants.

Mandana Zanganeh, Mary Jordan, Hema Mistry

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Cost of operating a human milk bank in the UK: a microcosting analysis.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2025
    Article
  9. Understanding modifiable barriers to human milk donation in the United Kingdom.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Mandana ZanganehWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3934-6044
Mary JordanWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0497-8634
Hema MistryWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5023-1160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reviews on the cost/outcome of donor human milk (DHM) for infants requiring care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting have been undertaken. However, the cost-effectiveness evidence is unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published full economic evaluations of DHM versus standard feeding in infants in neonatal care with the aim of undertaking a narrative synthesis of the cost-effectiveness evidence and critical appraisal of the methods used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and PROSPERO databases were searched. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations (model-based or trial-based), the participants were infants in neonatal units requiring nutritional support, the intervention was DHM and the comparator was any standard feeding option. There were no restrictions on outcome measures. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, assessed quality and cross-checked results, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Information extracted focused on study context, and economic evaluation methods and results. Of 2861 studies, seven were included. Six (86%) studies originated from high-income countries. Four (57%) of the studies were model-based. Although we could not directly compare the different studies, due to the heterogenous nature of health and economic parameters used in the studies, all DHM interventions indicated cost-effective or cost saving results. This review suggests that economic evaluation of DHM interventions is an expanding area of research. Although these interventions show promise, future economic evaluations of DHM interventions need to explicitly provide more details on long-term costs and consequences.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalMilk, HumanCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInfantInfant, Newbornbreast milkcost-effectivenessdonor human milkeconomic evaluationhealth stateinfant formulamilk bank

Identifiers

PMID33528106
PMCPMC7988847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.