Association Between Breastfeeding and Childhood Breathing Patterns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the association between breastfeeding and breathing patterns in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for publications from inception to October 1, 2017. The breastfeeding duration and period of exclusive breastfeeding were selected as primary outcomes. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the evidence. The Newcastle-Ottawa Score was used for quality and comparability assessment. RESULTS: Of the 54 articles identified, three observational studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, representing 1,046 participants. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence rate of mouth breathing (OR = 2.04; 95% CI, 1.26-3.31; p = 0.004) was significantly higher in subjects who were breastfed for less than 6 months, but no significant difference was observed within the periods of exclusive breastfeeding (6 months or less) (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.73-2.21; p = 0.40). CONCLUSION: We found only limited evidence about the association between breastfeeding and breathing patterns. However, the current evidence supports the association between breastfeeding and childhood breathing patterns. Based on this review, we found that the frequency of normal nasal respiration increases with the duration of breastfeeding. The methodological quality of the studies included was moderate. Thus, future studies should aim to correct the confounding factors related to breathing patterns, to use standardized diagnostic criteria of mouth breathing, and to conduct a prospective research to reduce the recall bias.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".