MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387440660 · doi:10.1186/s40748-023-00166-0

Expressed breast milk and maternal expression of breast milk for the prevention and treatment of neonatal hypoglycemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4387440660 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oluwatoyin Ibukun Oladimeji, Jane E. Harding, Caroline A Crowther, Luling Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueMaternal Health Neonatology and Perinatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal hypoglycemiaRandomized controlled trialHypoglycemiaBreast milkBreastfeedingBreast feedingMeta-analysisPediatricsCohort studyRelative riskObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineGestationConfidence intervalInsulinBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, many guidelines recommend the use of expressed breast milk (EBM) and maternal expression of breast milk for the prevention and treatment of neonatal hypoglycemia. However, the impact of both practices on neonatal hypoglycemia is unclear. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of EBM and maternal expression of breast milk in preventing and treating neonatal hypoglycemia. METHODS: We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42022328072). We systematically reviewed five databases and four clinical trial registries to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT), non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI), and cohort studies that compared infants who received EBM to infants who did not, and similar study designs that compared infants whose mothers expressed breast milk to infants whose mothers did not. Two independent reviewers carried out screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. The quality of included RCT, NRSI, and cohort studies were respectively assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. Results from studies on EBM were synthesized separately from those on maternal expression of breast milk. Meta-analysis was undertaken using Revman 5.4. and fixed-effect models. RESULTS: None of the ten included studies was specifically designed to determine the effect of EBM or maternal expression of breast milk on neonatal hypoglycemia. The effect of EBM on neonatal hypoglycemia was not estimable. There was no difference in the risk of hypoglycaemia among neonates whose mothers expressed breast milk compared to those whose mothers did not [RR (95%CI); one RCT: 0.92 (0.77, 1.10), high-certainty evidence; one cohort: 1.10 (0.74, 1.39), poor quality study]. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of EBM for preventing or treating neonatal hypoglycemia. Limited data suggests maternal breast milk expression may not alter the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of EBM and maternal expression of breast milk for the prevention and treatment of neonatal hypoglycemia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaternal Health Neonatology and PerinatologySame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207