MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389920272 · doi:10.1186/s13006-023-00607-8

Lumbar spine bone mineral density in women breastfeeding for a period of 4 to 6 months: systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389920272 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larissa Brazolotto Ferreira, Keny Gonçalves Tirapeli, Carla Cristiane Silva, Tamara Beres Lederer Goldberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Breastfeeding Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Estadual PaulistaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsMedicineLumbar spineBreastfeedingBone mineralMeta-analysisLumbarSystematic reviewObstetricsDentistryMEDLINESurgeryOsteoporosisPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background During the breastfeeding period, important transient changes in calcium homeostasis are verified in the maternal skeleton, to meet the demand for calcium for breastmilk production. The literature is inconclusive regarding the causes and percentages of involvement of bone densitometry resulting from exclusive breastfeeding (4 to 6 months). Methods This article aims to systematically review the literature, to determine the occurrence, intensity, and factors involved in alterations in maternal bone mineral density (BMD), during a period of 4 to 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding. The search descriptors “ woman” , “ breastfeeding ”, “ human milk ”, and “ bone mineral density ” were used in the electronic databases of the Virtual Health Library, Scielo ( Scientific Electronic Library Online ), CAPES Periodicals Portal, LILACS, Embase, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, Scopus , and Web of Science in June 2023. Inclusion criteria for breastfeedingmothers were; aged to 40 years, primigravida, exclusively breastfeeding, with BMD assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), with values expressed at baseline and from 4 to 6 months postpartum. The Jadad scale, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – levels of evidence were adopted to assess the quality of the studies. For the meta-analytical study, statistical calculations were performed. Results Initially, 381 articles were found using the search strategy and 26 were read in full. After risk of bias analysis, 16 articles remained in the systematic review and four were included in the meta-analysis. The studies showed a reduction in bone mass in the lumbar spine in the first months postpartum (4 – 6 months), when compared with a longer period of breastfeeding (12–18 months). The breastfeeding group presented a greater impact in the meta-analysis than the control group (non-breastfeeding, pregnant, or immediate postpartum), with a reduction in BMD in the lumbar spine of -0.18 g/cm 2 (-0.36, -0.01 g/cm 2 ); 95% Confidence Interval, on a scale from 0 to 10. Conclusions Our results demonstrated a transitory reduction in bone densitometry of the lumbar spine during exclusive breastfeeding for 4 to 6 months, which was gradually restored later in the postpartum period. More prospective studies are needed to better understand the topic. Trial registration PROSPERO platform (nº CRD42021279199), November 12th, 2021.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Breastfeeding JournalSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207