We are updating the Cochrane Review on Methods of Milk Expression and seeking any controlled trials that may not be published or are published in a format that a database search might not pick-up (including academic research studies, conference presentations, product trials) or published in a language other than English (we can get articles translated) or studies that are on-going. Do you know of any such studies? These might compare types of pumps, hand expressing versus pump; breast massage or not, specific education or support versus control etc
Please share this request with anyone you think may be able to help. The review is on-going, however for inclusion in the next publication of the review, we would need to know about the study by Nov 6, 2013.Thank you. Review being updated
Becker GE, Cooney F, Smith HA. Methods of milk expression for lactating women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD006170. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006170.pub3. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD006170/frame.html
I assume that persons from the Cochrane Review think that it is self-evident that because breastfeeding is an undoubted good, it follows that breast milk has useful ingredients, hence justifying the trouble and expense of utilizing expressed milk. If there is any evidence to show that expressed milk is better for babies than alternative milks or formula, could they please put this up on
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_breast_milk_have_any_practical_value
Human milk has nourished human babies for thousands of years as well as having a positive effect on maternal health and family economics. Non-human milk is the intervention - and therefore this needs to be proven, not the biological norm. (Like asking to prove that a functioning kidney is better than using an artificial kidney machine). If anyone has any evidence that non-human milk has constitunents that have been proven to be better for children's short and long term health and positive for maternal health and economics, could they please put up this evidence?
"Non-human milk is the intervention - and therefore this needs to be proven, not the biological norm."
I quite agree. There is far too much talk about the benefits of breastfeeding, when what we should be talking about is the harm of some types of artificial feeding. I think such harm is entirely explicable in terms of supine feeding, and that the constituents of what is fed is largely immaterial. However, what needs to be proved about breastfeeding is that its effects are mediated by substances in the milk.
I respectfully suggest that you undertake a literature search. There is a very large amount of published research on the substances in milk. There is also a body of publications on the language used and the move over the last decade to phrasing as the importance of breastfeeding/mother's milk/human milk rather than the "benefits" of breastfeeding. There are increasing publications on the risks of not breastfeeding, It is all out there if you look.
"There is a very large amount of published research on the substances in milk"
There are indeed many potentially beneficial substances in breast milk, but it still needs to be shown in practice that it is these factors which lead to better outcomes for breastfed babies. If it was the milk itself was the crucial factor, why is it that a dose effect for breast milk can only be shown for the first few months of life?
"It is all out there if you look"
I appealed in the Lancet in 1981 for any reference to show that it is what is fed, rather than how it is fed, that is the key factor. I am still waiting.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude