Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 562

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the nutrient content of preterm and term breast milk

Open access
Gidrewicz, Dominica A, Fenton, Tanis R·2014·BMC Pediatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast milk nutrient content varies with prematurity and postnatal age. Our aims were to conduct a meta-analysis of preterm and term breast milk nutrient content (energy, protein, lactose, oligosaccharides, fat, calcium, and phosphorus); and to assess the influence of gestational and postnatal age. Additionally we assessed for differences by laboratory methods for: energy (measured vs. calculated estimates) and protein (true protein measurement vs. the total nitrogen estimates). METHODS: Systematic review results were summarized graphically to illustrate the changes in composition over time for term and preterm milk. Since breast milk fat content varies within feeds and diurnally, to obtain accurate estimates we limited the meta-analyses for fat and energy to 24-hour breast milk collections. RESULTS: Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria: 26 (843 mothers) preterm studies and 30 (2299 mothers) term studies of breast milk composition. Preterm milk was higher in true protein than term milk, with differences up to 35% (0.7 g/dL) in colostrum, however, after postnatal day 3, most of the differences in true protein between preterm and term milk were within 0.2 g/dL, and the week 10-12 estimates suggested that term milk may be the same as preterm milk by that age. Colostrum was higher than mature milk for protein, and lower than mature milk for energy, fat and lactose for both preterm and term milk. Breast milk composition was relatively stable between 2 and 12 weeks. With milk maturation, there was a narrowing of the protein variance. Energy estimates differed whether measured or calculated, from -9 to 13%; true protein measurement vs. the total nitrogen estimates differed by 1 to 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Although breast milk is highly variable between individuals, postnatal age and gestational stage (preterm versus term) were found to be important predictors of breast milk content. Energy content of breast milk calculated from the macronutrients provides poor estimates of measured energy, and protein estimated from the nitrogen over-estimates the protein milk content. When breast milk energy, macronutrient and mineral content cannot be directly measured the average values from these meta-analyses may provide useful estimates of mother's milk energy and nutrient content.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2431-14-216

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 562

Metadata

Authors
Gidrewicz, D. A., & Fenton, T. R.
Venue
BMC Pediatrics
Published
2014-08-30
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
216-216
ISSN
1471-2431 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2024698696
Cited by
562
References
4
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the nutrient content of preterm and term breast milk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2431-14-216
The paper
Gidrewicz, D. A., & Fenton, T. R. (2014). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the nutrient content of preterm and term breast milk. BMC Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-216

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.