与配方奶喂养相关的风险是什么?重新分析和回顾。

Q2 Nursing Breastfeeding Review Pub Date : 2010-07-01
Melinda E McNiel, Miriam H Labbok, Sheryl W Abrahams
{"title":"与配方奶喂养相关的风险是什么?重新分析和回顾。","authors":"Melinda E McNiel,&nbsp;Miriam H Labbok,&nbsp;Sheryl W Abrahams","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most infant feeding studies present infant formula use as 'standard' practice, supporting perceptions of formula feeding as normative and hindering translation of current research into counseling messages supportive of exclusive breastfeeding. To promote optimal counseling, and to challenge researchers to use exclusive breastfeeding as the standard, we have reviewed the scientific literature on exclusive breastfeeding and converted reported odds ratios to allow discussion of the 'risks' of any formula use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies indexed in PubMed that investigated the association between exclusive breastfeeding and otitis media, asthma, types 1 and 2 diabetes, atopic dermatitis, and infant hospitalization secondary to lower respiratory tract diseases were reviewed. Findings were reconstructed with exclusive breastfeeding as the standard, and levels of signidicance calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When exclusive breastfeeding is set as the normative standard, the re-calculated odds ratios communicate the risks of any formula use. For example, any formula use in the first 6 months is significantly associated with increased incidence of otitis media (OR: 178, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.70 and OR: 4.55, 95% CI: 1.64, 12.50 in the available studies; pooled OR for any formula in the first 3 mo: 2.00, 95% CI: 140, 2.78). Only shorter durations of exclusive breastfeeding are available to use as standards for calculating the effect of 'any formula use' for type 1 diabetes, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and hospitalization secondary to lower respiratory tract infections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Exclusive breastfeeding is an optimal practice, compared with which other infant feeding practices carry risks. Further studies on the influence of presenting exclusive breastfeeding as the standard in research studies and counseling messages are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":35568,"journal":{"name":"Breastfeeding Review","volume":"18 2","pages":"25-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What are the risks associated with formula feeding? A re-analysis and review.\",\"authors\":\"Melinda E McNiel,&nbsp;Miriam H Labbok,&nbsp;Sheryl W Abrahams\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most infant feeding studies present infant formula use as 'standard' practice, supporting perceptions of formula feeding as normative and hindering translation of current research into counseling messages supportive of exclusive breastfeeding. To promote optimal counseling, and to challenge researchers to use exclusive breastfeeding as the standard, we have reviewed the scientific literature on exclusive breastfeeding and converted reported odds ratios to allow discussion of the 'risks' of any formula use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies indexed in PubMed that investigated the association between exclusive breastfeeding and otitis media, asthma, types 1 and 2 diabetes, atopic dermatitis, and infant hospitalization secondary to lower respiratory tract diseases were reviewed. Findings were reconstructed with exclusive breastfeeding as the standard, and levels of signidicance calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When exclusive breastfeeding is set as the normative standard, the re-calculated odds ratios communicate the risks of any formula use. For example, any formula use in the first 6 months is significantly associated with increased incidence of otitis media (OR: 178, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.70 and OR: 4.55, 95% CI: 1.64, 12.50 in the available studies; pooled OR for any formula in the first 3 mo: 2.00, 95% CI: 140, 2.78). Only shorter durations of exclusive breastfeeding are available to use as standards for calculating the effect of 'any formula use' for type 1 diabetes, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and hospitalization secondary to lower respiratory tract infections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Exclusive breastfeeding is an optimal practice, compared with which other infant feeding practices carry risks. Further studies on the influence of presenting exclusive breastfeeding as the standard in research studies and counseling messages are recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breastfeeding Review\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"25-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breastfeeding Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breastfeeding Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数婴儿喂养研究将婴儿配方奶粉的使用作为“标准”做法,支持了配方奶粉喂养是规范的看法,并阻碍了将当前研究转化为支持纯母乳喂养的咨询信息。为了促进最佳咨询,并挑战研究人员将纯母乳喂养作为标准,我们回顾了纯母乳喂养的科学文献,并转换了报道的优势比,以便讨论使用任何配方奶粉的“风险”。方法:对PubMed收录的关于纯母乳喂养与中耳炎、哮喘、1型和2型糖尿病、特应性皮炎和继发于下呼吸道疾病的婴儿住院之间关系的研究进行综述。以纯母乳喂养为标准对结果进行重构,并计算显著性水平。结果:当纯母乳喂养被设定为规范标准时,重新计算的优势比传达了任何配方奶使用的风险。例如,在现有研究中,前6个月使用任何配方与中耳炎发病率增加显著相关(OR: 178, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.70和OR: 4.55, 95% CI: 1.64, 12.50);前3个月任何配方的合并OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 140, 2.78)。对于1型糖尿病、哮喘、特应性皮炎和继发于下呼吸道感染的住院治疗,只有较短的纯母乳喂养时间可作为计算“任何配方奶使用”效果的标准。结论:纯母乳喂养是一种最佳做法,与其他婴儿喂养方式相比存在风险。建议进一步研究将纯母乳喂养作为研究和咨询信息中的标准的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What are the risks associated with formula feeding? A re-analysis and review.

Background: Most infant feeding studies present infant formula use as 'standard' practice, supporting perceptions of formula feeding as normative and hindering translation of current research into counseling messages supportive of exclusive breastfeeding. To promote optimal counseling, and to challenge researchers to use exclusive breastfeeding as the standard, we have reviewed the scientific literature on exclusive breastfeeding and converted reported odds ratios to allow discussion of the 'risks' of any formula use.

Methods: Studies indexed in PubMed that investigated the association between exclusive breastfeeding and otitis media, asthma, types 1 and 2 diabetes, atopic dermatitis, and infant hospitalization secondary to lower respiratory tract diseases were reviewed. Findings were reconstructed with exclusive breastfeeding as the standard, and levels of signidicance calculated.

Results: When exclusive breastfeeding is set as the normative standard, the re-calculated odds ratios communicate the risks of any formula use. For example, any formula use in the first 6 months is significantly associated with increased incidence of otitis media (OR: 178, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.70 and OR: 4.55, 95% CI: 1.64, 12.50 in the available studies; pooled OR for any formula in the first 3 mo: 2.00, 95% CI: 140, 2.78). Only shorter durations of exclusive breastfeeding are available to use as standards for calculating the effect of 'any formula use' for type 1 diabetes, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and hospitalization secondary to lower respiratory tract infections.

Conclusions: Exclusive breastfeeding is an optimal practice, compared with which other infant feeding practices carry risks. Further studies on the influence of presenting exclusive breastfeeding as the standard in research studies and counseling messages are recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Breastfeeding Review
Breastfeeding Review Nursing-Maternity and Midwifery
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Three experienced lactation consultants reflect upon the oral tie phenomenon. Breastfeeding policy: The foundation for improving Australia's health. Perspectives of key stakeholders and experts in infant feeding on the implementation of the Australian National Breastfeeding Strategy 2010-2015. New Zealand women talk about breastfeeding support from male family members. Bringing babies and breasts into workplaces: Support for breastfeeding mothers in workplaces and childcare services at the Australian National University.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1