3.9 Article

Breastfeeding and the risk of hospitalization for respiratory disease in infancy - A meta-analysis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 157, 期 3, 页码 237-243

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.157.3.237

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine breastfeeding and the risk of hospitalization for lower respiratory tract disease in healthy full-term infants with access to modern medical care. Data Sources: MEDLINE, personal communication with researchers, the OVID databases, Dissertation Abstracts Online, and BIOSIS. Study Selection: The titles, abstracts, and text of studies from developed countries were explored for breastfeeding exposure measures and lower respiratory tract disease hospitalization rates. For summary statistics, we required 3 inclusion criteria: (1) a feeding contrast of a minimum of 2 months of exclusive breastfeeding (no formula supplementation) vs no breastfeeding and (2) study populations that excluded sick, low birth weight or premature infants and (3) reflected affluent regions; 27% of studies met these criteria. Data Extraction: We abstracted data from all relevant reports. Data Synthesis: Data from all primary material (33 studies) indicated a protective association between breastfeeding and the risk of respiratory disease hospitalization. Nine studies met all inclusion criteria, and 7 cohort studies were pooled. The feeding contrasts in these 7 studies were 4 or more months of exclusive breastfeeding vs no breastfeeding. The summary relative risk (95% confidence interval) was 0.28 (0.14-0.54), using a random-effects model. This effect remained stable and statistically significant after adjusting for the effects of smoking or socioeconomic status. Conclusion: Among generally healthy infants in developed nations, more than a tripling in severe respiratory tract illnesses resulting in hospitalizations was noted for infants who were not breastfed compared with those who were exclusively breastfed for 4 months.

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

3.9
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