Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34444380›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Breastfeeding after Returning to Work: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Frédéric Dutheil, Grégory Méchin, Philippe Vorilhon, Amanda C Benson, Anne Bottet, Maëlys Clinchamps, Chloé Barasinski, Valentin Navel

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Frédéric DutheilCNRS, LaPSCo, Physiological and Psychosocial Stress, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Université Clermont Auvergne, WittyFit, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Grégory MéchinDepartment of General Practice, UFR Medicine, 28 Place Henri-Dunant, Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Philippe VorilhonDepartment of General Practice, UFR Medicine, Research Unit ACCePPT Self-Medication, Multi-Professional Support for Patients, Université Clermont Auvergne, 28 Place Henri-Dunant, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Amanda C BensonSwinburne University of Technology, Health and Biostatistics, Hawthorn, Victoria, VIC 3122, Australia.
Anne BottetDepartment of General Practice, UFR Medicine, Research Unit ACCePPT Self-Medication, Multi-Professional Support for Patients, Université Clermont Auvergne, 28 Place Henri-Dunant, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Maëlys ClinchampsCNRS, LaPSCo, Physiological and Psychosocial Stress, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Université Clermont Auvergne, WittyFit, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4756-6928
Chloé BarasinskiCNRS, SIGMA Clermont, Institut Pascal, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Université Clermont Auvergne Perinatality, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Valentin NavelCNRS, INSERM, GReD, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Ophthalmology, Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6317-345X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefits of breastfeeding are widely known; however, continuation after returning to work (RTW) is not. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW. The secondary objectives were to compare the economic statuses between continents.

methodPubMed, Cochrane Library, Base, and Embase were searched until 1 September 2020, and two independent reviewers selected the studies and collated the data. To be included, articles needed to describe our primary outcome, i.e., prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW.

resultsWe included 14 studies, analyzing 42,820 women. The overall prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW was 25% (95% CI, 21% to 29%), with an important heterogeneity (I

conclusionBreastfeeding after RTW is widely heterogeneous across the world. Despite economic status playing a role in breastfeeding after RTW, cultural aspects seem influential. The lack of data regarding breastfeeding after RTW in most countries demonstrates the strong need of data to inform effective preventive strategies.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingReturn to WorkFemaleHumansMiddle EastSocioeconomic Factorslactationoccupationpregnancypublic healthwell-being

Identifiers

PMID34444380
PMCPMC8393856

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.