Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 887

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomized Trial of Introduction of Allergenic Foods in Breast-Fed Infants

Open access
Perkin, Michael R., Logan, Kirsty, Tseng, Anna, Raji, Bunmi, Ayis, Salma, Peacock, Janet, Brough, Helen, Marrs, Tom, Radulovic, Suzana, Craven, Joanna, Flohr, Carsten, Lack, Gideon·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The age at which allergenic foods should be introduced into the diet of breast-fed infants is uncertain. We evaluated whether the early introduction of allergenic foods in the diet of breast-fed infants would protect against the development of food allergy. METHODS: We recruited, from the general population, 1303 exclusively breast-fed infants who were 3 months of age and randomly assigned them to the early introduction of six allergenic foods (peanut, cooked egg, cow's milk, sesame, whitefish, and wheat; early-introduction group) or to the current practice recommended in the United Kingdom of exclusive breast-feeding to approximately 6 months of age (standard-introduction group). The primary outcome was food allergy to one or more of the six foods between 1 year and 3 years of age. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, food allergy to one or more of the six intervention foods developed in 7.1% of the participants in the standard-introduction group (42 of 595 participants) and in 5.6% of those in the early-introduction group (32 of 567) (P=0.32). In the per-protocol analysis, the prevalence of any food allergy was significantly lower in the early-introduction group than in the standard-introduction group (2.4% vs. 7.3%, P=0.01), as was the prevalence of peanut allergy (0% vs. 2.5%, P=0.003) and egg allergy (1.4% vs. 5.5%, P=0.009); there were no significant effects with respect to milk, sesame, fish, or wheat. The consumption of 2 g per week of peanut or egg-white protein was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of these respective allergies than was less consumption. The early introduction of all six foods was not easily achieved but was safe. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not show the efficacy of early introduction of allergenic foods in an intention-to-treat analysis. Further analysis raised the question of whether the prevention of food allergy by means of early introduction of multiple allergenic foods was dose-dependent. (Funded by the Food Standards Agency and others; EAT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14254740.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1514210

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 887

Metadata

Authors
Perkin, M. R., Logan, K., Tseng, A., Raji, B., Ayis, S., Peacock, J., Brough, H., Marrs, T., Radulovic, S., Craven, J., Flohr, C., & Lack, G.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-05-05
Volume
374
Issue
18
Pages
1733-1743
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2298219994
Cited by
887
References
0
FWCI
89.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Trial of Introduction of Allergenic Foods in Breast-Fed Infants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1514210
The paper
Perkin, M. R., Logan, K., Tseng, A., Raji, B., Ayis, S., Peacock, J., Brough, H., Marrs, T., Radulovic, S., Craven, J., Flohr, C., & Lack, G. (2016). Randomized Trial of Introduction of Allergenic Foods in Breast-Fed Infants. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1514210

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.