ArticlePloS one2021
The effect of risk at birth on breastfeeding duration and exclusivity: A cohort study at a Brazilian referral center for high-risk neonates and infants.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with the interruption of exclusive breastfeeding and weaning in premature infants after hospital discharge: a prospective cohort study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Antenatal breastfeeding promotion amongst pregnancies at high-risk for newborn admission to the NICU: A cross-sectional study.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2022Article
- Association between type of feeding at hospital discharge and nutritional status of Brazilian very preterm infants: a multicenter study.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimBoth breastfeeding and the use of human milk are strategies that provide better conformation to health throughout an individual's life and bring countless short- and long- term benefits, which are well established in the scientific literature. For at-risk newborns (NBs), these strategies are crucial interventions to enable neonatal survival with better quality of life due to the distinctive and complex composition of human milk, which serves as personalized food-medicine-protection. However, there is limited knowledge about breastfeeding practices in high-risk NBs. The aim was to estimate the duration of EBF and to investigate the effect of risk at birth on EBF discontinuity in the first six months of life'.
methodsThis cohort study included 1,003 NBs from a high-risk referral center, followed up from birth to the sixth month of life, between 2017 and 2018. Correspondence and cluster analysis was used to identify neonatal risk clusters as the main exposure. The object of interest was the time until EBF discontinuity. The Kaplan-Meier methods and the Cox proportional hazards model were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe prevalence and median duration of EBF decreased proportionally in the three groups. The multiple model revealed a gradient in EBF discontinuity, which was 40% higher in risk group 1 and 111% higher in risk group 2 compared to healthy full-term NBs. Additionally, EBF during hospitalization predicted a longer median duration of this practice for high-risk NBs.
conclusionThis study confirms a high proportion of high-risk NBs who have EBF discontinued before six months of life. The risk of EBF discontinuity is higher in risk groups, with a gradual effect even when adjusted by several factors. Effective interventions are needed to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding in different profiles of risk-at-birth groups.
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.