Breast- vs. Bottle-Feeding

Eiger, Marvin S.; Rausen, Aaron R.; Silverio, John

doi:10.1177/000992288402300908

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in line with the only study we found that controlled specifically for whether the infants were fed additional solid foods, which examined differences in upper respiratory infection, lower respiratory infection, acute otitis media, diarrhea and/or vomiting, dermatitis, hypochromic anemia, and others, based on blood tests and clinician assessments, in a small sample of 25 breastfed and 25 “bottle fed” upper middle class infants (19). The authors of that publication found “no statistically significant differences in morbidity between the 2 groups except for a borderline greater frequency of upper respiratory infections in the bottle‐fed group” (p. 492).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Multivariate logistic regressions with generalized estimating equations (GEE) (17)(18)(19) were then calculated in STATA to assess the impact of complementary food introduction and breast-feeding status, controlling for each other and the confounding variables on the measures of infant health for each month. GEEs are the most appropriate method to use with repeated measures and dichotomous-dependent variables.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health Impacts of Early Complementary Food Introduction Between Formula‐fed and Breastfed Infants

Rippey

Aravena

Nyonator³

2020

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Global health agencies agree that infants should not be fed complementary foods before 4 to 6 months of age. However, given the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of complementary food as “anything other than breast milk,” little is known about the relative risks of formula compared with other complementary foods on infant health. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature, by assessing how differences in the timing of the introduction of nonformula complementary food between breastfed and formula-fed infants impacts infant health. Methods: Eight health outcomes by complementary food introduction, breast-feeding, formula feeding, and mixed feeding (breastfed and formula-fed) were predicted using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations on the newborn through 6-month waves of the Infant Feeding Practices Study II (IFPS-II). Results: Complementary foods increased the likelihood for all health risks measured. Given greater prevalence of early complementary food introduction among formula-fed infants, most health differences between breast-feeding groups shift to nonsignificance in full models, with the exception of higher rates of hard stool and cough/wheeze among formula-fed and mixed-fed infants but lower rates of diarrhea (LO = −0.577; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.074 to 0.080) and runny nose or cold (LO = −3.19; 95% CI = −0.552 to −0.086) for mixed-fed than breastfed infants. Conclusions: Our results confirm health benefits of exclusive breast-feeding and that the introduction of complementary foods before 4 to 6 months poses a greater risk to infant health than does formula. Greater attention to the early introduction of complementary foods is needed in research and clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health Impacts of Early Complementary Food Introduction Between Formula‐fed and Breastfed Infants

Rippey

Aravena

Nyonator³

2020

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A decrease in the incidence of neonatal sepsis, including sepsis associated with gram-negative bacilli and E. coli serotype K1, also has been linked to breast-feeding [314][315][316]; antibody and compartmentalized cellular reactivity to this serotype have been shown in human colostrum. Other studies have failed, however, to show clear evidence of protection against systemic infection in breast-fed infants [317][318][319]. A review of the evidence for protection of very low birth weight neonates from late-onset sepsis through the use of human milk suggested that the quality of the current evidence was insufficient to show a beneficial effect [320], although other authors have reached different conclusions [84,321].…”

Section: Neonatal Sepsismentioning

confidence: 99%