The Use of Nipple Shields: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A nipple shield is a breastfeeding aid with a nipple-shaped shield that is positioned over the nipple and areola prior to nursing. Nipple shields are usually recommended to mothers with flat nipples or in cases in which there is a failure of the baby to effectively latch onto the breast within the first 2 days postpartum. The use of nipple shields is a controversial topic in the field of lactation. Its use has been an issue in the clinical literature since some older studies discovered reduced breast milk transfer when using nipple shields, while more recent studies reported successful breastfeeding outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence and outcomes associated with nipple shield use. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE Classic, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. The primary endpoint was any breastfeeding outcome following nipple shield use. Secondary endpoints included the reasons for nipple shield use and the average/median length of use. For the analysis, we examined the effect of nipple shield use on physiological responses, premature infants, mothers' experiences, and health professionals' experiences. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 261 articles, 14 of which were included in this review. Of these 14 articles, three reported on physiological responses, two reported on premature infants, eight reported on mothers' experiences, and one reported on health professionals' experiences. CONCLUSION: Through examining the use of nipple shields, further insight is provided on the advantages and disadvantages of this practice, thus allowing clinicians and researchers to address improvements on areas that will benefit mothers and infants the most.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".