Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Donor breast milk versus infant formula for preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Boyd, Catherine A, Quigley, Maria A, Brocklehurst, Peter·2007·Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effect of donor breast milk with infant formula in preterm infants. Separate comparisons with formula were made for donor breast milk that was: (1) given as a sole diet; (2) given as a supplement to mother’s own breast milk; and (3) fortified with macronutrients and micronutrients. The main outcomes were death, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infection, growth and development. Data sources: Electronic databases—Cochrane, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and HMIC: DH. Review methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials and observational studies of preterm or low birthweight infants. Results: Seven studies (including five randomised controlled trials), all from the 1970s and 1980s, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All studies compared the effect of sole donor breast milk with formula (combined n = 471). One of these also compared the effect of donor breast milk with formula given as a supplement to mother’s own milk (n = 343). No studies examined fortified donor breast milk. A meta-analysis based on three studies found a lower risk of NEC in infants receiving donor breast milk compared with formula (combined RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76). Donor breast milk was associated with slower growth in the early postnatal period, but its long-term effect is unclear. Conclusion: Donor breast milk is associated with a lower risk of NEC and slower growth in the early postnatal period, but the quality of the evidence is limited. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and measure the effect of fortified or supplemented donor breast milk.

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 · 10.1136/adc.2005.089490

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Boyd, C. A., Quigley, M. A., & Brocklehurst, P.
Venue
Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-03-23
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
F169-F175
ISSN
  • 1359-2998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2052
OpenAlex
W1964895345
Cited by
401
References
1
FWCI
1.39
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: Donor breast milk versus infant formula for preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/adc.2005.089490
The paper
Boyd, C. A., Quigley, M. A., & Brocklehurst, P. (2007). Donor breast milk versus infant formula for preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2005.089490

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.