Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33712049›Full record

ArticleInternational breastfeeding journal2021

Evaluating antenatal breastmilk expression outcomes: a scoping review.

Imane Foudil-Bey, Malia S Q Murphy, Sandra Dunn, Erin J Keely, Darine El-Chaâr

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International breastfeeding journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05516199 (Antenatal Breastmilk Expression From Week 34 of Gestation Safety in Pregnancy and Benefits for the Newborn Infant), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05516199 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Antenatal Breastmilk Expression From Week 34 of Gestation Safety in Pregnancy and Benefits for the Newborn Infant: A Pilot Randomized Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdense University HospitalRan2022 to 2023Enrolled60ConditionsBreastmilk Expression, Collection, Breastmilk, Breastfeeding, HealthyArmsAntenatal breastmilk expression, Breastfeeding consultation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Glycaemic control in labour with diabetes: GILD, a scoping study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. A Longitudinal Observation of Antenatal Milk Expression in Mothers of Infants with Congenital Anomalies.Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine · 2024
    Observational
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Imane Foudil-BeyOMNI Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Malia S Q MurphyOMNI Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Sandra DunnOMNI Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Erin J KeelyDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Darine El-ChaârOMNI Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. delchaar@toh.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes for Health Research Foundation Grant FDN 148438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal breastmilk expression (aBME) is recommended by some healthcare providers to improve lactation, breastfeeding, and newborn outcomes, particularly for women with diabetes as they face unique challenges with breastfeeding. However, there is limited evidence of the potential harms and benefits of this practice. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to map the literature describing maternal and newborn outcomes of aBME.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, British Library E-Theses Online Services (EThOS) database, OpenGrey, and Clinical trials.gov from inception to January 2020. Studies in English that reported on the effect of aBME on maternal and newborn outcomes, and the experiences of women who have engaged in the practice were included for screening. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened by two independent reviewers. A critical appraisal and clinical consultation were conducted. Key findings were extracted and summarized.

resultsWe screened 659 studies and 20 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies (n = 11, 55.0%) were published after 2015, and seven (35.0%) originated from Australia. Ten (50.0%) studies provided data on high-risk obstetrical populations, including those with diabetes (n = 8), overweight or obesity (n = 1), and preeclampsia (n = 1). Commonly reported outcomes included breastfeeding status at discharge or follow-up, mode of delivery, newborn blood glucose, and time to establishing full lactation. Maternal experiences were related to challenges with aBME, confidence and mastery, perceived impact, security and altruism, learning and resources, and physical symptoms as a result of aBME. The critical appraisal demonstrated limited high-quality evidence surrounding aBME.

conclusionsOur findings demonstrate increasing interest in the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of aBME. Existing studies are heterogenous with variable research questions, outcomes, study designs, and methodology. The recommendations made in this review can be used to help inform  future studies evaluating aBME.

Indexed as

Breast Milk ExpressionBreast FeedingFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornObesityOverweightPregnancyAntenatal breast expressionAntenatal breastmilk expressionBreastfeedingColostrumPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID33712049
PMCPMC7971107

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.