-
European Journal of Pediatrics Sep 2022The purpose of this study is to assess whether pacifier use is associated with breastfeeding success in term and preterm newborns and whether it influences... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The purpose of this study is to assess whether pacifier use is associated with breastfeeding success in term and preterm newborns and whether it influences hospitalization time in preterm newborns. Four databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The risk of bias and evidence quality, according to the GRADE methodology, were analyzed. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were used. The random effect model was used if heterogeneity was high (I over 40%). We screened 772 abstracts, assessed 44 full texts, and included 10 studies, of which 5 focused on term and 5 on preterm newborns. There were a few concerns about the risk of bias in 9 of the 10 studies. Breastfeeding rates were analyzed at 2, 3, 4, and 6 months, and the success rates were similar between the restricted and free pacifier use groups (evidence quality was moderate to high). In preterm neonates, the use of a pacifier shortened the duration of hospitalization by 7 days (MD 7.23, CI 3.98-10.48) and the time from gavage to total oral feeding by more than 3 days (MD 3.21 days, CI 1.19-5.24) (evidence quality was ranked as moderate). Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, pacifier use should not be restricted in term newborns, as it is not associated with lower breastfeeding success rates. Furthermore, introducing pacifiers to preterm newborns should be considered, as it seems to shorten the time to discharge as well as the transition time from gavage to total oral feeding. What is Known: • Observational studies show that infants who use a pacifier are weaned from breastfeeding earlier. • Previous randomized studies have not presented such results, and there have been no differences in the successful breastfeeding rates regardless of the use of pacifier. What is New: • Term and preterm newborns do not have worse breastfeeding outcomes if a pacifier is introduced to them, and additionally preterm newborns have shorter hospitalization times. • The decision to offer a pacifier should depend on the caregivers instead of hospital policy or staff recommendation, as there is no evidence to support the prohibition or restriction.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Hospitals; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pacifiers; Patient Discharge
PubMed: 35834044
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04559-9 -
Progress in Orthodontics Mar 2018Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures.
METHODS
A search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I).
RESULTS
Among the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one. These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones.
CONCLUSIONS
High level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated. There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures. Functional/orthodontic pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional pacifiers on orofacial structures.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Malocclusion; Maxillofacial Development; Open Bite; Pacifiers; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 29532184
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0206-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in neonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, method of administration and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates as assessed by validated composite pain scores, physiological pain indicators (heart rate, respiratory rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen in the blood, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide (gas exchange measured across the skin - TcpO2, TcpCO2), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalogram (EEG), or behavioural pain indicators (cry duration, proportion of time crying, proportion of time facial actions (e.g. grimace) are present), or a combination of these and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal. We performed electronic and manual literature searches in February 2016 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 2016). We did not impose language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs in which term or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age), or both, received sucrose for procedural pain. Control interventions included no treatment, water, glucose, breast milk, breastfeeding, local anaesthetic, pacifier, positioning/containing or acupuncture.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our main outcome measures were composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioural, physiological and contextual indicators). Secondary outcomes included separate physiological and behavioural pain indicators. We reported a mean difference (MD) or weighted MD (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. For categorical data we used risk ratio (RR) and risk difference. We assessed heterogeneity by the I(2) test. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventy-four studies enrolling 7049 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses and for most analyses the GRADE assessments indicated low- or moderate-quality evidence. There was high-quality evidence for the beneficial effect of sucrose (24%) with non-nutritive sucking (pacifier dipped in sucrose) or 0.5 mL of sucrose orally in preterm and term infants: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) 30 s after heel lance WMD -1.70 (95% CI -2.13 to -1.26; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity); 3 studies, n = 278); PIPP 60 s after heel lance WMD -2.14 (95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 studies, n = 164). There was high-quality evidence for the use of 2 mL 24% sucrose prior to venipuncture: PIPP during venipuncture WMD -2.79 (95% CI -3.76 to -1.83; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 groups in 1 study, n = 213); and intramuscular injections: PIPP during intramuscular injection WMD -1.05 (95% CI -1.98 to -0.12; I(2) = 0% (2 groups in 1 study, n = 232). Evidence from studies that could not be included in RevMan-analyses supported these findings. Reported adverse effects were minor and similar in the sucrose and control groups. Sucrose is not effective in reducing pain from circumcision. The effectiveness of sucrose for reducing pain/stress from other interventions such as arterial puncture, subcutaneous injection, insertion of nasogastric or orogastric tubes, bladder catherization, eye examinations and echocardiography examinations are inconclusive. Most trials indicated some benefit of sucrose use but that the evidence for other painful procedures is of lower quality as it is based on few studies of small sample sizes. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sucrose is effective for reducing procedural pain from single events such as heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection in both preterm and term infants. No serious side effects or harms have been documented with this intervention. We could not identify an optimal dose due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation of repeated administration of sucrose in neonates is needed. There is some moderate-quality evidence that sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological interventions such as non-nutritive sucking is more effective than sucrose alone, but more research of this and sucrose in combination with pharmacological interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely preterm, unstable, ventilated (or a combination of these) neonates needs to be addressed. Additional research is needed to determine the minimally effective dose of sucrose during a single painful procedure and the effect of repeated sucrose administration on immediate (pain intensity) and long-term (neurodevelopmental) outcomes.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain Measurement; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucrose
PubMed: 27420164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001069.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Bedding and Linens; Child; Child, Preschool; Fingersucking; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Pacifiers; Reinforcement, Psychology; Stress, Psychological; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 25825863
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008694.pub2 -
Maternal & Child Nutrition Jul 2017Identifying modifiable risk factor for exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) interruption is key for improving child health globally. There is no consensus about the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Identifying modifiable risk factor for exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) interruption is key for improving child health globally. There is no consensus about the effect of pacifier use on EBF interruption. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between pacifier use and EBF interruption during the first six month. A search of CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS and Medline; from inception through 30 December 2014 without restriction of language yielded 1,866 publications (PROSPERO protocol CRD42014014527). Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria peer reviewed yielded 46 studies: two clinical trials, 20 longitudinal, and 24 cross-sectional studies. Meta-analysis was performed and meta-regression explored heterogeneity across studies. The pooled effect of the association between pacifier use and EBF interruption was 2.48 OR (95% CI = 2.16-2.85). Heterogeneity was explained by the study design (40.2%), followed by differences in the measurement and categorization of pacifier use, the methodological quality of the studies and the socio-economic context. Two RCT's with very limited external validity found a null association, but 44 observational studies, including 20 prospective cohort studies, did find a consistent association between pacifier use and risk of EBF interruption (OR = 2.28; 95% CI = 1.78-2.93). Our findings support the current WHO recommendation on pacifier use as it focuses on the risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes as a result of pacifier use. Future studies that take into account the risks and benefits of pacifier use are needed to clarify this recommendation.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Humans; Infant; Observational Studies as Topic; Pacifiers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27863027
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12384 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2009By definition, the cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is not known. Observational studies have found an association between SIDS and several risk factors,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
By definition, the cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is not known. Observational studies have found an association between SIDS and several risk factors, including prone sleeping position, prenatal or postnatal exposure to tobacco smoke, soft sleeping surfaces, hyperthermia/overwrapping, bed sharing (particularly with mothers who smoke), lack of breastfeeding, and lack of soother use. The risk of SIDS is increased in families in which there has been a prior sudden infant death.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce the risk of SIDS? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 28 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: advice to avoid prone sleeping; advice to avoid tobacco-smoke exposure; advice to avoid soft sleeping surfaces; advice to avoid overheating or overwrapping; advice to avoid bed sharing; advice to breastfeed; advice to promote soother/pacifier use; and advice to promote room sharing (without bed sharing).
Topics: Beds; Breast Feeding; Humans; Infant; Pacifiers; Prone Position; Risk Factors; Sudden Infant Death
PubMed: 21726486
DOI: No ID Found -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022Breastfeeding is very important for the proper nutrition and growth of the child, as well as, the health of the mother. To start breastfeeding, the neonate must have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breastfeeding is very important for the proper nutrition and growth of the child, as well as, the health of the mother. To start breastfeeding, the neonate must have extensive oral capacities for sucking functions but, premature neonates may not have the muscle strength needed to suck successfully. However, the non-nutritive sucking achieved by using a pacifier, has been identified by previous research as a factor associated with shorter duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This study aims to perform a systematic review to investigate the relationship between pacifier use in preterm neonates and breastfeeding in infancy.
METHODS
We included prospective studies, as well as randomized controlled studies that evaluated the association between pacifier use by preterm neonates and of breastfeeding in infancy. Ten research articles from PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar and Crossref were included in the review from a total of 1455 articles. The results differ depending on the type of study.Most prospective studies have shown a negative correlation between pacifier use and breastfeeding, while the randomized controlled studies found a positive correlation.
CONCLUSIONS
Pacifier use in preterm infants helps transition from tube to oral feeding, breastfeeding, faster weight gain and earlier discharge from the NICU. However, the relationship between pacifiers and breastfeeding is more complicated, as it appears to be influenced by additional risk factors.
PubMed: 36291521
DOI: 10.3390/children9101585 -
CoDAS Apr 2016Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the maintenance of the sucking habit. Research Strategies: Through a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, performed from the databases Lilacs, Medline and Embase and Scholar Google, with the following key words in Portuguese and English: "malocclusion" + "Pacifiers "; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle Feeding"; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle feeding" beyond words "Orthodontic Beak" + "Conventional Beak".
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that presented in their methods to compare groups who used pacifiers and/or bottle with conventional nozzle with groups using orthodontic nipple without temporal delimitation.
DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis of the article in its entirety was performed systematically, ordering the relevant results in the following categories: objective, method-case studies and evaluation, results, and conclusion.
RESULTS
Found 1,041 jobs, from the period 1969 to 2013, 848 jobs were excluded based on the exclusion criteria and another 174 that were repetitions. A total of 19 articles were read in full of which 4 articles met the proposed inclusion criteria, and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. These results show that there are no significant differences between the orthodontic and conventional nozzles on the implications of the stomatognathic system.
CONCLUSION
There is no way to conclude that there are differences as to the consequences to the stomatognathic system caused by conventional nozzles and orthodontic pacifier/bottle.
Topics: Bottle Feeding; Child; Child, Preschool; Equipment Design; Habits; Humans; Infant; Pacifiers; Risk Factors; Stomatognathic Diseases; Stomatognathic System; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 27191883
DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015024 -
Brazilian Oral Research 2022Deleterious oral habits (DOH) have been described as a common finding in pediatric series. Studies have investigated their association with local and systemic health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Deleterious oral habits (DOH) have been described as a common finding in pediatric series. Studies have investigated their association with local and systemic health problems. In this study, the association between DOH and asthma was investigated. PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and OpenThesis were accessed to identify observational studies that evaluated the association between DOH (thumb sucking, pacifier use, onychophagia or nail biting, bottle feeding) and asthma in children aged 2-17 years. Information on DOH was obtained from the verbal report of the children's parents. Asthma diagnosis was performed by a physician or using the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire. We used a random-effects model to pool the results. The odds ratio (OR) was used as measure of association between DOH and asthma. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess risk of bias. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Five studies were included and data from 18,733 children aged 2 to 13 years were analyzed. We found an association between bottle feeding and asthma (OR = 1.25; 95%CI 1.13-1.38; p < 0.001) with moderate level of certainty. Despite the association between pacifier use and asthma (OR = 1.11; 95%CI 1.00-1.24; p = 0.05), the quality of evidence was low. Only one study provided data on nail biting and thumb-sucking, and the individual results showed no association between these habits and asthma. This meta-analysis found an association between bottle feeding, pacifier use, and asthma in children.
Topics: Adolescent; Asthma; Bottle Feeding; Child; Child, Preschool; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Habits; Humans; Pacifiers; United States
PubMed: 35293504
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2022.vol36.0039 -
Turk Pediatri Arsivi Sep 2018To determine the breastfeeding problems encountered in the postpartum period and effect of interventions done in relation to the problems based on breastfeeding studies... (Review)
Review
To determine the breastfeeding problems encountered in the postpartum period and effect of interventions done in relation to the problems based on breastfeeding studies in Turkey. This study is a systematic review and was conducted by performing a scan of the Turkish and English literature over the period October 2016-February 2017. The study included 27 articles and seven theses, which were published in 2000-2015 in Turkey and published in 2008-2017. Data are presented tabulating and the aggregate percentages were calculated for some data showing common characteristics. A total of 6736 parents and 592 babies were included in these studies. As a result of the combined percentage calculation based on the data of cross-sectional and case-control studies, the most frequently reported problems were having breastfeeding problem (24.5%), mother's milk deficiency/worry about milk deficiency/thinking her baby is not satisfied/baby's inadequate weight gain (15.7%), lack of knowledge and experience about breastfeeding/need for education and support (17.8%). Again, these studies showed that women stated the problems about have flat/depressed/small nipple (7.7%), pain/sensitivity (3.9%), swelling/fullness/engorgement (10.8%), redness (28.8%), crack/wound/bleeding (26.1%) and mastitis (5.6%). Methods of prenatal education/counselling/motivation/follow-up, strong motivation, proactive lactation management and social support, moist warm application, using of breast milk and olive oil and using of breast shield and feeding with container and pacifier using have been reported to be effective in the experimental/quasi-experimental and case report studies included in this systematic review. This study showed that women experienced a lot problem with breastfeeding and that more prenatal education/counselling/monitoring was used in reducing problems.
PubMed: 30459512
DOI: 10.5152/TurkPediatriArs.2018.6350