ArticleCMAJ open
Association between newborn hypoglycemia screening and breastfeeding success in an Ottawa, Ontario, hospital: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- CanDo (Canadian Donor Milk) randomised controlled trial: pasteurised human donor milk supplementation in the well-baby unit - protocol.BMJ open · 2026Trial
- The Evidence Informing Hypoglycaemia Treatment Thresholds in Asymptomatic, Term, Well Newborns: A Review of Literature and Critical Appraisal of Methodological Challenges.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2026Review
- Improving timing of early neonatal hypoglycemia screening in the well-baby nursery.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Proposed Screening for Congenital Hyperinsulinism in Newborns: Perspective from a Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Group.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Neonatal hypoglycaemia.BMJ medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been limited investigation of the unintended effects of routine screening for asymptomatic hypoglycemia in at-risk newborns. This study aimed to explore whether rates of exclusive breastfeeding were lower in screened babies than in unscreened babies.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study conducted in Ottawa, Canada, used data from Hôpital Montfort's electronic health information system. Healthy singleton newborns discharged between Feb. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2018, were included. We excluded babies and mothers with conditions expected to interfere with breastfeeding (e.g., twins). We investigated the association between postnatal screening for hypoglycemia and initial exclusive breastfeeding (in the first 24 hours of life).
resultsWe included 10 965 newborns; of these, 1952 (17.8%) were fully screened for hypoglycemia. Of screened newborns, 30.6% exclusively breastfed and 64.6% took both formula and breastmilk in the first 24 hours of life. Of unscreened newborns, 45.4% exclusively breastfed and 49.8% received both formula and breastmilk. The adjusted odds ratio for exclusive breastfeeding in the first 24 hours of life among newborns screened for hypoglycemia was 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.51-0.64).
interpretationThe association of routine newborn hypoglycemia screening with a lower initial rate of exclusive breastfeeding suggests a potential effect of screening on early breastfeeding success. Confirmation of these findings might warrant a re-evaluation of the net benefit of asymptomatic postnatal hypoglycemia screening for different newborn populations at risk of hypoglycemia.
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.