Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41984914›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Validating self-reported exclusive breastfeeding in Eswatini using stable isotope techniques.

Kwanele Siyabonga Simelane, Tholakele Mhlanga, Nhlakanipho Sandziso Mkhaliphi, Siniketiwe Zwane, Glorious Dlamini, Henry Gadaga, Helen Mulol, Anna Coutsoudis

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kwanele Siyabonga SimelaneDepartment of Environmental Health-Food Science Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eswatini, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2316-0675
Tholakele MhlangaEswatini National Nutrition Council, Ministry of Health, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Nhlakanipho Sandziso MkhaliphiEswatini National Nutrition Council, Ministry of Health, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Siniketiwe ZwaneEswatini National Nutrition Council, Ministry of Health, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Glorious DlaminiEswatini National Nutrition Council, Ministry of Health, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2948-4419
Henry GadagaDepartment of Environmental Health-Food Science Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eswatini, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2797-5479
Helen MulolDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4138-2418
Anna CoutsoudisDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) prevalence at the population level is typically assessed through maternal or caregiver reports, which are prone to recall and social desirability biases. The deuterium oxide dose-to-mother (DTM) technique offers an objective alternative by administering a small amount of deuterium-labeled water to lactating mothers. This study compared the prevalence of EBF from maternal recall versus the DTM method in Eswatini and evaluated the strengths and limitations of both approaches in assessing infant feeding practices linked to malnutrition. A total of 102 mother-infant pairs were recruited from three regional hospitals and three health centers in Eswatini. EBF was assessed by maternal recall using the WHO 24-hour infant feeding recall method and objectively measured using the DTM stable isotope technique at three infant age intervals: 6 weeks to 2.4 months (n = 26), 2.5 to 4.0 months (n = 43), and 4.1 to 5.5 months (n = 33). Two cutoff values defined EBF status via the stable isotope method. Agreement between maternal recall and DTM measurements was analyzed using Kappa statistics. Maternal recall consistently overestimated EBF across all time points compared to the DTM method. Using Model 1 cutoffs, prevalences of EBF by maternal recall vs. DTM were 100% vs. 50% (≤2.4 months), 79.5% vs. 18.2% (2.5-4 months), and 71.9% vs. 18.8% (4.1-5.5 months). For Model 2, prevalences were 100% vs. 65.4%, 79.5% vs. 50%, and 71.9% vs. 43.8%, respectively. The difference between the two models is the cutoff that was used to determine EBF using the DTM method. Kappa analysis showed minimal agreement between methods at each time point. The DTM technique provides a more accurate and objective measure of EBF than maternal recall and is the gold standard for smaller sample studies. Maternal recall substantially overestimated exclusive breastfeeding prevalence, while the deuterium oxide technique yielded more reliable, objective assessments of infant feeding practices, highlighting the need to interpret recall data with caution due to overreporting.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingSelf ReportAdultDeuterium OxideEswatiniFemaleHumansInfantMothersDeuterium Oxide

Identifiers

PMID41984914
PMCPMC13082701

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.