Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35276848›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2022

The Effect of Consumption of Animal Milk Compared to Infant Formula for Non-Breastfed/Mixed-Fed Infants 6-11 Months of Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Julie M Ehrlich, Joseph Catania, Muizz Zaman, Emily Tanner Smith, Abigail Smith, Olivia Tsistinas, Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, Aamer Imdad

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Julie M EhrlichCollege of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8636-2640
Joseph CataniaCollege of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1551-981X
Muizz ZamanCollege of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
Emily Tanner SmithCollege of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5313-0664
Abigail SmithHealth Science Library, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
Olivia TsistinasHealth Science Library, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
Zulfiqar Ahmed BhuttaCentre for Global Child Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON M5G 0A4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0637-599X
Aamer ImdadDivision of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · USHospital for Sick Children · CAUniversity of Oregon · US

Funding

World Health Organization 2020/1050195-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many infants do not receive breastmilk for the recommended 2-year duration. Instead, alternative milk beverages are often used, including infant formula and raw animal milk products. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the effect of animal milk consumption, compared to infant formula, on health outcomes in non-breastfed or mixed-fed infants aged 6-11 months. We searched multiple databases and followed Cochrane guidelines for conducting the review. The primary outcomes were anemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight-for-age, length-for-age, and weight-for-length. Nine studies were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and five cohort studies. All studies, except one, were conducted in high income countries. There was a low certainty of evidence that cow's milk increased the risk of anemia compared to formula milk (Cohort studies RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.15, 4.43, RCTs: RR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.68, 9.65) and gastrointestinal blood loss (Cohort study RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.73, 3.16, RCTs: RR: 3.14, 95% CI: 0.98, 10.04). Additionally, there was low certainty evidence that animal milk consumption may not have a differential effect on weight and length-for-age compared to formula milk. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty and no solid conclusions can be drawn from this data. Further studies are needed from low- and middle-income countries to assess optimal milk type in non-breastfed infants aged 6-11 months.

Indexed as

Infant FormulaMilk, HumanAnimalsCattleCohort StudiesFemaleanemiaanimal’s milkcow’s milkinfant formula

Identifiers

PMID35276848
PMCPMC8838240
OpenAlexW4206948235

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.