BackgroundFurther research gaps exist in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding. Robust scientific evidence obtained by a meta-analysis would provide objectively summarized data while enabling the assessment of consistency of findings. This review includes the first documented meta-analysis done on the effectiveness of targeting fathers for promoting breastfeeding (BF). Assessments have been done for a primary outcome and for six more secondary outcomes.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL databases and unpublished researches were searched. Selections of randomized-controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were done in three rounds. Heterogeneity and potential publication bias were assessed. Eight studies were included in meta-analysis and others in narrative synthesis of the outcomes. Pooling was done with the Mental- Haenszel method using risk ratio (RR). Summary-of-Findings table was composed by Review-Manager (version 5.3) and GRADEproGDT applications. Subsequent sensitivity analysis was done.ResultsSelected eight interventional studies included 1852 families. Exclusive BF at six months was significantly higher (RR = 2.04, CI = 1.58–2.65) in the intervention groups. The RR at 4 months was 1.52 (CI = 1.14 to 2.03). Risk of full-formula-feeding (RR = 0.69, CI = 0.52–0.93) and the occurrence of lactation-related problems were lower in the intervention groups (RR = 0.24, CI = 0.10–0.57). More likelihood of rendering support in BF-related issues was seen in intervention groups (RR = 1.43, CI = 1.22–1.68). Increase of maternal knowledge and favorable attitudes on BF were higher in the intervention groups (P ≤; 0.001). The quality of evidence according to GRADE was “low” (for one outcome), “moderate” (for four outcomes), and “high” (for two outcomes).ConclusionsTargeting fathers in promotion of BF has provided favorable results for all seven outcomes with satisfactory quality of evidence.This review was registered in the PROSPERO-registry (ID: 2017-CRD42017076163) prior to its commencement.
BackgroundAlthough antenatal iron supplementation is beneficial to mothers, its impact on the neurodevelopment of offspring is controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess whether routine maternal antenatal iron supplementation confers later neurodevelopmental benefit to offspring.MethodsElectronic databases were searched using MESH terms or key words and identified papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The review was registered in the PROSPERO CRD data base.ResultsSeven publications were identified, based on four randomised trials published between 2006 and 2016. Three of the trials were in the Asian sub-continent. A range of tools were used to evaluate neurodevelopment. Meta-analysis of outcomes from the three RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria showed minimal effect of antenatal iron supplementation on the neurodevelopment of offspring, which was not statistically significant: weighted mean difference of 0.54 (95% CI: -0.67 to 1.75); test for overall effect Z = 0.87; p = 0.38; and heterogeneity 48%. Meta-analysis of outcomes of these RCTs at later stages of development produced similar results.ConclusionsThe benefit of routine antenatal iron supplementation on neurodevelopment in offspring was not statistically significant in this relatively limited set of trials, and some benefit cannot be excluded in areas with a high prevalence of maternal anaemia. A large randomized controlled trial showing significant benefit would be required to modify our conclusions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1118-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.