4.4 Review

Pacifier use and interruption of exclusive breastfeeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12384

关键词

exclusive breastfeeding; meta-analysis; meta-regression; pacifiers; risk factors; systematic review

资金

  1. Brazilian government through the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel-CAPES Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying modifiable risk factor for exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) interruption is key for improving child health globally. There is no consensus about the effect of pacifier use on EBF interruption. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between pacifier use and EBF interruption during the first six month. A search of CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS and Medline; from inception through 30 December 2014 without restriction of language yielded 1,866 publications (PROSPERO protocol CRD42014014527). Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria peer reviewed yielded 46 studies: two clinical trials, 20 longitudinal, and 24 cross-sectional studies. Meta-analysis was performed and meta-regression explored heterogeneity across studies. The pooled effect of the association between pacifier use and EBF interruption was 2.48 OR (95% CI=2.16-2.85). Heterogeneity was explained by the study design (40.2%), followed by differences in the measurement and categorization of pacifier use, the methodological quality of the studies and the socio-economic context. Two RCT's with very limited external validity found a null association, but 44 observational studies, including 20 prospective cohort studies, did find a consistent association between pacifier use and risk of EBF interruption (OR=2.28; 95% CI=1.78-2.93). Our findings support the current WHO recommendation on pacifier use as it focuses on the risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes as a result of pacifier use. Future studies that take into account the risks and benefits of pacifier use are needed to clarify this recommendation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据