Lanolin for the treatment of nipple pain in breastfeeding women: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nipple pain and damage are commonly experienced by breastfeeding women and are associated with negative breastfeeding outcomes. Health care providers often recommend the application of lanolin to treat painful/damaged nipples, yet no randomized controlled trial has evaluated the effectiveness of lanolin on nipple pain and breastfeeding outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of lanolin on nipple pain among breastfeeding women with damaged nipples. A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Breastfeeding women (N = 186) identified as having nipple pain/damage were randomized to apply lanolin (intervention group; n = 93) or to receive usual postpartum care (control group; n = 93). The primary outcome was nipple pain at 4 days post-randomization measured by the Numeric Rating Scale. Additional outcomes included nipple pain measured by the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, breastfeeding duration/exclusivity, breastfeeding self-efficacy, and maternal satisfaction with lanolin treatment versus usual care. The results revealed no significant group differences in mean pain scores at 4 days post-randomization. Women in both groups experienced clinically relevant decreases in nipple pain by 7 days post-randomization. Significantly, more women in the lanolin group reported that they were satisfied with treatment compared with those receiving usual care. No significant group differences were found for other secondary outcomes. While more women were satisfied using lanolin, its application to sore/damaged nipples was ineffective for reducing nipple pain or improving breastfeeding outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".