SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
The efficacy and the safety of antenatal breastmilk expression on breastfeeding outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundAntenatal breastmilk expression (ABE) has gained attention as a potential intervention to improve breastfeeding success, particularly among women at risk of delayed lactogenesis or breastfeeding difficulties. Breastfeeding is highly beneficial for maternal and infant health, yet global exclusive breastfeeding rates remain below WHO targets. Although emerging evidence suggests potential benefits, a comprehensive synthesis of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ABE on breastfeeding outcomes.
methodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from the inception of the data bases to September 2024. Two authors independently reviewed the studies. Studies were included if they used randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of ABE on breastfeeding related outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess quality. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsThis systematic review included 10 randomized controlled trials involving 1672 participants. ABE significantly improved the initiation of lactation (MD = -6.23; 95% CI: -7.77 to -4.69; moderate certainty evidence. at < 72 h: OR = 4.06; 95% CI: 2.15–7.67; high certainty evidence), and the breastfeeding self-efficacy (MD = 8.51; 95% CI: 7.69–9.33; moderate certainty evidence), both statistically significant. Exclusive breastfeeding rates were significantly higher within 3 months postpartum (OR = 4.95; 95% CI: 2.65–9.25, I2 = 85%; moderate certainty evidence), but no significant difference was observed at ≥ 3 months (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.83–1.44, P = 0.54; moderate certainty evidence). There was no difference in the risk of admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.74–1.57, P = 0.69), gestational age at birth (MD = -0.15; 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.00, P = 0.05), birthweight (MD = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.05, P = 0.35), and cesarean section delivery (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.87–1.40, P = 0.42) among mothers with ABE compared to those who did not.
conclusionThe existing evidence supports the efficacy and safety of ABE interventions on promoting breastfeeding. ABE programs can be incorporated into antenatal breastfeeding education.
trial registrationThis review has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42024534064).
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.