4.6 Review

Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Herbal Galactogogues

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN LACTATION
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 154-162

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0890334413477243

关键词

breastfeeding; galactogogues; herbs; lactation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exclusive breastfeeding has been linked to many positive health outcomes, yet its widespread adoption as the primary mode of providing nutrition to infants remains challenging. The most common reported reason for early breastfeeding cessation is perception of inadequate milk production. To augment breast milk production, a substantial number of women turn to herbal galactogogues despite the limited scientific evidence of their efficacy and safety. We conducted a systematic review of published literature to evaluate the efficacy of herbal galactogogues. PubMed was searched from inception to October 2012 using an iterative search process that proceeded from broad categories to specific herbs. Manuscript references were also reviewed. Only experimental studies with objective outcome measures were included. Six trials met our search criteria. Using an adapted version of the CONSORT checklist, each trial was evaluated for potential sources of bias in design and reporting. Shatavari, torbangun, fenugreek, milk thistle, and a Japanese herbal medication were the 5 herbal preparations studied. Five trials found an increase in breast milk production. Several limitations exist that affect the validity of the trial results, including small sample size, insufficient randomization methods, poorly defined eligibility criteria, use of poly-herbal interventions, and variable breastfeeding practices among enrolled subjects. Given the insufficiency of evidence from these trials, no recommendation is made for the use of herbs as galactogogues. Well-designed and well-conducted clinical trials that address the above limitations are necessary to generate a body of evidence as a basis for recommendations regarding herbal galactogogues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据