MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pacifier use versus no pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding

2011· review· en· W1533207100 on OpenAlexaff
Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mubashir Angolkar, Jacqueline J Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPacifierBreastfeedingMedicinePediatricsBreast feedingConfidence intervalRelative riskInfant formulaBreast milkRandomized controlled trialObstetricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207