Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131212›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

Breastfeeding support provided by lactation consultants in high-income countries for improved breastfeeding rates, self-efficacy, and infant growth: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Curtis J D'Hollander, Victoria A McCredie, Elizabeth M Uleryk, Charles D G Keown-Stoneman, Catherine S Birken, Deborah L O'Connor, Jonathon L Maguire

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Curtis J D'HollanderDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0375-138X
Victoria A McCredieInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Elizabeth M UlerykEM Uleryk Consulting, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Charles D G Keown-StonemanApplied Health Research Centre, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Catherine S BirkenInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Deborah L O'ConnorDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jonathon L MaguireDepartment of Paediatrics, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. jonathon.maguire@utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is well established that breast milk offers numerous health benefits for mother and child. Mothers are recommended to exclusively breastfeed their child until 6 months of age, with continued breastfeeding up to 1-2 years of age or beyond. Yet, these recommendations are met less than half of the time in high-income countries. Lactation consultants specialize in supporting mothers with breastfeeding and are a promising approach to improving breastfeeding rates. For lactation consultant interventions to be implemented widely as part of public health policy, a better understanding of their effect on breastfeeding rates and important health outcomes is needed.

methodsThe overall aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effect of lactation consultant interventions provided to women, compared to usual care, on breastfeeding rates (primary outcome), maternal breastfeeding self-efficacy, and infant growth. A search strategy has been developed to identify randomized controlled trials published in any language between 1985 and April 2023 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We will also perform a search of the grey literature and reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. Two reviewers will independently extract data on study design, baseline characteristics, details of the interventions employed, and primary and secondary outcomes using a pre-piloted standardized data extraction form. Risk of bias and quality of evidence assessment will be done independently and in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE approach, respectively. Where possible, meta-analysis using random-effects models will be performed, otherwise a qualitative summary will be provided. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DISCUSSION: This review will fill an important gap in the lactation support literature. The findings will be of importance to policymakers who seek to implement interventions to improve breastfeeding rates.

trial registrationThis review has been registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42022326597).

Indexed as

Breast FeedingConsultantsChildDeveloped CountriesFemaleHumansInfantLactationMeta-Analysis as TopicSelf EfficacySystematic Reviews as TopicBreastfeedingInfant growthLactation consultantLactation counselorObesityOverweightSelf-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID37131212
PMCPMC10152596

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.