Supporting Optimal Growth in Infants with Chronic Conditions: How Are We Doing and What Can We Do?

Smith, Chris

doi:10.1089/bfm.2019.0038

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The systematic search yielded 199 unique items; 39 were considered eligible after screening of the title and abstract. Thirty-two publications were excluded: 29 were published as conference proceedings, one article was an opinion paper [ 10 ], one article was a survey among CF center directors that did not report individual data [ 11 ] and one article [ 12 ] reported preintervention and postintervention values of growth parameters after a project to improve BF in CF, but it did not show a comparison between breastfed and formula-fed infants. Thus, seven studies were identified by the systematic search [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ], and two studies were identified by the manual search [ 20 , 21 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breastfeeding in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review on Prevalence and Potential Benefits

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breastfeeding (BF) is considered the normative standard of feeding for all infants. However, the impact of BF in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is not completely defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate BF prevalence in the CF population and its impact on anthropometric and pulmonary outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for original articles published in English up to 4 December 2020 that report the prevalence of BF and/or any measure of association between BF and anthropometric or pulmonary outcomes. Nine observational studies were identified (six retrospective cohort studies, one prospective cohort study, one survey and one case–control study within a retrospective cohort). The BF rate in CF patients is lower than that of the healthy population (approximately 50–60% of infants were breastfed at any time). The benefits in anthropometric outcomes of BF for >2 months in this at-risk population are unclear. A few relatively small studies suggest a potential benefit of BF in reducing lung infections, although data are inconsistent. The currently available data are insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the benefits of exclusive BF in anthropometric and pulmonary outcomes in CF. Clinical trials evaluating well-defined BF promotion interventions are needed.

show abstract