Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36741988›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022

Karleen Gribble, Jennifer Cashin, Kathleen Marinelli, Duong Hoang Vu, Roger Mathisen

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A proposal to recognize investment in breastfeeding as a carbon offset.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Karleen GribbleSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, NSW, Australia.
Jennifer CashinAlive & Thrive Southeast Asia, FHI 360, Washington, DC, United States.
Kathleen MarinelliDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Hartford, CT, United States.
Duong Hoang VuAlive & Thrive Southeast Asia, FHI 360, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Roger MathisenAlive & Thrive Southeast Asia, FHI 360, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Thrive · USUniversity of Hartford · USWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) published clinical guidance for the care of newborns of mothers with COVID-19. Weighing the available evidence on SARS-CoV-2 infection against the well-established harms of maternal-infant separation, the WHO recommended maternal-infant proximity and breastfeeding even in the presence of maternal infection. Since then, the WHO's approach has been validated by further research. However, early in the pandemic there was poor global alignment with the WHO recommendations. Methods: We assessed guidance documents collected in November and December 2020 from 101 countries and two regional agencies on the care of newborns of mothers with COVID-19 for alignment with the WHO recommendations. Recommendations considered were: (1) skin-to-skin contact; (2) early initiation of breastfeeding; (3) rooming-in; (4) direct breastfeeding; (5) provision of expressed breastmilk; (6) provision of donor human milk; (7) wet nursing; (8) provision of breastmilk substitutes; (9) relactation; (10) psychological support for separated mothers; and (11) psychological support for separated infants. Results: In less than one-quarter of country guidance were the three key breastfeeding facilitation practices of skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and direct breastfeeding recommended. Donor human milk was recommended in under one-quarter of guidance. Psychological support for mothers separated from their infants was recommended in 38%. Few countries recommended relactation, wet nursing, or psychological support for infants separated from mothers. In three-quarters of country guidance, expressed breastmilk for infants unable to directly breastfeed was recommended. The WHO and the United Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were each cited by half of country guidance documents with the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention directly or indirectly cited by 40%. Conclusion: Despite the WHO recommendations, many COVID-19 maternal and newborn care guidelines failed to recommend skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and breastfeeding as the standard of care. Irregular guidance updates and the discordant, but influential, guidance from the United States Centers for Disease Control may have been contributory. It appeared that once recommendations were made for separation or against breastfeeding they were difficult to reverse. In the absence of quality evidence on necessity, recommendations against breastfeeding should not be made in disease epidemics.

Indexed as

breastfeedingCOVID-19policypsychosocial support systemsrooming-in care

Identifiers

PMID36741988
PMCPMC9889271
OpenAlexW4317039662

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.