|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
04425nam a2200277 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB002136285 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000001274412 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
tu||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
221206 r ||| eng |
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Güngör, Darcy
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Never versus ever feeding human milk and celiac disease
|h Elektronische Ressource
|b a systematic review
|c Darcy Güngör [and 17 others]
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Washington, D.C.
|b United States Department of Agriculture
|c April 2019, 2019
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 1 PDF file (200 pages)
|b illustrations
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a Includes bibliographical references
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a United States
|b Department of Agriculture
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (U.S.)
|b Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b NCBI
|a National Center for Biotechnology Information
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581373
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 140
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 610
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a Evidence from the 2 studies that controlled for confounding variables suggested that never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with a higher risk of celiac disease. Evidence from the remaining 2 studies, which did not include statistical adjustments for confounding variables, was inconsistent.3. The ability to draw stronger conclusions was primarily limited by the small number of studies, the potential for confounding in some studies, and the retrospective collection of exposure data, which increases the risk of misclassification of the exposure
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a Infant formula was defined as commercially-prepared infant formula meeting FDA and/or Codex Alimentarius international food standards.4. This systematic review examines diagnosed celiac disease, only, to ensure that it addresses the relationship of never versus ever feeding human milk with celiac disease and not the relationship of never versus ever feeding human milk with the many other diseases and conditions with similar symptoms. CONCLUSION STATEMENT AND GRADES: 1. Limited evidence from a small number of case-control studies suggests that never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of celiac disease. Grade: Limited METHODS: 1. The systematic review was conducted by a team of staff from the Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review in collaboration with a Technical Expert Collaborative.2. A single literature search was conducted to identify literature for several related systematic reviews that examined infant milk-feeding practices and different outcomes.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a BACKGROUND: 1. This systematic review was conducted as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project.2. The goal of this systematic review was to examine the following question: What is the relationship between never versus ever feeding human milk and celiac disease?3. This systematic review examines comparisons of infants who were never fed human milk with infants who were ever fed human milk (i.e., any amount of human milk feeding). Human milk feeding was defined as feeding human milk alone or in combination with infant formula and/or complementary foods or beverages such as cow's milk. Human milk was defined as mother's own milk provided at the breast (i.e., nursing) or expressed and fed fresh or after refrigeration or freezing. Donor milk (e.g., banked milk) was not examined in this review.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a The search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed, and used a search date range of January 1980 to March 2016. A manual search was done to identify articles that may not have been included in the electronic databases searched.3. Articles were screened independently by 2 NESR analysts to determine which articles met predetermined criteria for inclusion.4. Data from each included article were extracted, risks of bias were assessed, and both were checked for accuracy.5. The body of evidence was qualitatively synthesized, a conclusion statement was developed, and the strength of the evidence (grade) was assessed using pre-established criteria including evaluation of the internal validity/risk of bias, adequacy, consistency, impact, and generalizability of available evidence. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: 1. Four articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review, all of which presented evidence from case-control studies.2.
|