Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 378

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

Randomized Clinical Trial of Pacifier Use and Bottle-Feeding or Cupfeeding and Their Effect on Breastfeeding

Howard, Cynthia R., Howard, Fred M., Lanphear, Bruce, Eberly, Shirley, deBlieck, Elisabeth A., Oakes, David, Lawrence, Ruth A.·2003·Pediatrics

Abstract

Objective. To enhance breastfeeding practices, the World Health Organization discourages pacifiers and bottle-feeding. However, the effect of artificial nipples on breastfeeding duration is poorly defined. The effects of 2 types of artificial nipple exposure on breastfeeding duration were evaluated: 1) cupfeeding versus bottle-feeding for the provision of in-hospital supplements and 2) early (2–5 days) versus late (>4 weeks) pacifier introduction. Methods. A total of 700 breastfed newborns (36–42 weeks, birth weight ≥2200 g) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention groups: bottle/early pacifier (n = 169), bottle/late pacifier (n = 167), cup/early pacifier (n = 185), or cup/late pacifier (n = 179). The cup/bottle intervention was invoked for infants who received supplemental feedings: cup (n = 251), bottle (n = 230). Data were collected at delivery and at 2, 5, 10, 16, 24, 38, and 52 weeks’ postpartum. Intervention effects on breastfeeding duration were evaluated with logistic regression and survival analyses. Results. Supplemental feedings, regardless of method (cup or bottle), had a detrimental effect on breastfeeding duration. There were no differences in cup versus bottle groups for breastfeeding duration. Effects were modified by the number of supplements; exclusive and full breastfeeding duration were prolonged in cup-fed infants given >2 supplements. Among infants delivered by cesarean, cupfeeding significantly prolonged exclusive, full, and overall breastfeeding duration. Exclusive breastfeeding at 4 weeks was less likely among infants exposed to pacifiers (early pacifier group; odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.0–2.0). Early, as compared with late, pacifier use shortened overall duration (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 1.03–1.44) but did not affect exclusive or full duration. Conclusions. There was no advantage to cupfeeding for providing supplements to the general population of healthy breastfed infants, but it may have benefitted mother–infant dyads who required multiple supplements or were delivered by cesarean. Pacifier use in the neonatal period was detrimental to exclusive and overall breastfeeding. These findings support recommendations to avoid exposing breastfed infants to artificial nipples in the neonatal period.

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 · 10.1542/peds.111.3.511

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 378

Metadata

Authors
Howard, C. R., Howard, F. M., Lanphear, B., Eberly, S., deBlieck, E. A., Oakes, D., & Lawrence, R. A.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2003-03-01
Volume
111
Issue
3
Pages
511-518
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2017840276
Cited by
378
References
1
FWCI
9.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 Clinical Trial of Pacifier Use and Bottle-Feeding or Cupfeeding and Their Effect on Breastfeeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.111.3.511
The paper
Howard, C. R., Howard, F. M., Lanphear, B., Eberly, S., deBlieck, E. A., Oakes, D., & Lawrence, R. A. (2003). Randomized Clinical Trial of Pacifier Use and Bottle-Feeding or Cupfeeding and Their Effect on Breastfeeding. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.3.511

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.