Observational studyInternational breastfeeding journal2026
Poor agreement between methods used in population studies to estimate the volume of human milk consumed: a Bland-Altman analysis.
Observational study in International breastfeeding journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring the volume of human milk consumed by infants is essential for understanding infant feeding patterns, and their impact on long-term nutrition and health. The study aimed to evaluate the agreement and quantify biases among three methods used to quantify the volume of human milk among children on partial breastfeeding up to 33 months of age.
methodsA cross-sectional, observational study was conducted between November and December 2022, with socially vulnerable children in the Federal District, Brazil. Dietary intake was assessed using two non-consecutive 24-hour recalls. Human milk volume was estimated using three methods: age/dose-to-mother (DTM), age/partial feeding, and age/feeding. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess associations between methods. Bland-Altman analysis was applied to evaluate agreement between estimates by each method. Statistical significance was set at 5%.
resultsEighty children were evaluated (mean age of 19 months; SD = 6.12), including 15 aged 7–12 months, and 65 aged 13–33 months. Among children aged 7–12 months, moderate and statistically significant correlations were observed between age/DTM × age/partial feeding (r = 0.544, p = 0.02) and between age/partial feeding × age/feeding (r = 0.649, p = < 0.001). The correlation between age/DTM and age/feeding was weak and not statistically significant (r = 0.309, p = 0.097). Most individual estimates fell within the limits of agreement. However, the age/DTM method yielded higher estimated of human milk volume - mean of 321 g/day (95% CI 273, 368) and 333 g/day (95% CI 273, 393) more than the age/feeding and age/partial feeding, respectively. The agreement between methods decreased as estimated milk volume increased.
conclusionsAlthough moderate positive correlations were observed among the methods, the age/partial feeding and age/feeding approaches demonstrated the highest level of agreement. No consistent agreement was found between the age/DTM method and the other two approaches.
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.