Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38844541›Full record

SynthesisPediatric research2025

Donor human milk versus infant formula for low-risk infants: a systematic review.

Thomas McClintock, Catherine Fiddes, Shalee Harris, Nicholas Embleton, Luling Lin, Frank H Bloomfield, Mariana Muelbert

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Balancing access to donor human milk: Rationing vs expanding use.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Review
  4. Exploring human milk donation: A cross-sectional study.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Thomas McClintock *Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Catherine Fiddes *Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Shalee HarrisLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Nicholas EmbletonNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Luling LinLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Frank H BloomfieldLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mariana MuelbertLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. m.muelbert@auckland.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an increasing acceptance and use of donor human milk (DHM) in healthy infants. This review investigates the benefits and risks of mothers' own milk (MOM) supplementation with DHM compared to infant formula (IF) in moderate-late preterm (MLP) and early term (ET) infants.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries were searched for studies published up to September 2023. The primary outcome was rates of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF). Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE framework. RoB1 and EPHPP were used to assess risk of bias for controlled trials and observational studies, respectively.

resultsEleven studies involving total of 10,147 infants and six ongoing trials were identified. Studies were of low quality, and the certainty of evidence was assessed as very low. Three studies suggested benefits of DHM compared to IF on EBF at discharge, while two suggested no difference. No clear effect was observed on EBF duration, any breastfeeding, hypoglycemia and morbidity. No health risks were reported.

conclusionThe effect of supplementing MOM with DHM instead of IF on EBF and other health outcomes is unclear. High-quality studies are required to determine the potential benefits or risks of DHM supplementation in this population. IMPACT: We identified 11 relevant studies reporting on supplementation of mothers' own milk (MOM) with donor human milk (DHM) compared to infant formula (IF). Studies were of low quality, had heterogeneous outcome definitions and were geographically limited; all except two were observational studies. Limited evidence showed no clear difference on rates of exclusive breastfeeding and other health outcomes. No potential risks were reported. The increasing acceptance and use of DHM in healthy infants highlights the need for future high-quality studies.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingInfant FormulaMilk, HumanFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaInfant, PrematureMilk Banks

Identifiers

PMID38844541
PMCPMC11798828

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.