The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Breastfeeding and the Risk of Postneonatal Death in the United States
Abstract
Objective. Breastfed infants in the United States have lower rates of morbidity, especially from infectious disease, but there are few contemporary studies in the developed world of the effect of breastfeeding on postneonatal mortality. We evaluated the effect of breastfeeding on postneonatal mortality in United States using 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) data. Methods. Nationally representative samples of 1204 infants who died between 28 days and 1 year from causes other than congenital anomaly or malignant tumor (cases of postneonatal death) and 7740 children who were still alive at 1 year (controls) were included. We calculated overall and cause-specific odds ratios for ever/never breastfeeding among all children, conducted race and birth weight–specific analyses, and looked for duration–response effects. Results. Overall, children who were ever breastfed had 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67–0.93) times the risk of never breastfed children for dying in the postneonatal period. Longer breastfeeding was associated with lower risk. Odds ratios by cause of death varied from 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38–0.94) for injuries to 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67–1.05) for sudden infant death syndrome. Conclusions. Breastfeeding is associated with a reduction in risk for postneonatal death. This large data set allowed robust estimates and control of confounding, but the effects of breast milk and breastfeeding cannot be separated completely from other characteristics of the mother and child. Assuming causality, however, promoting breastfeeding has the potential to save or delay ~720 postneonatal deaths in the United States each year.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Breastfeeding and the use of human milk
BREASTFEEDING, S. O., Eidelman, A. I., Schanler, R. J., Johnston, M., Landers, S., Noble, L., Szucs, K., & Viehmann, L. (2012) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3552 · Cited by 4,357
Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (2005) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1499 · Cited by 526
Moon, R. Y., Horne, R. S., & Hauck, F. R. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61662-6 · Cited by 365
Techniques for Handling Missing Data in Secondary Analyses of Large Surveys
Langkamp, D. L., Lehman, A., & Lemeshow, S. (2010) · Academic Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.acap.2010.01.005 · Cited by 218
Evenhouse, E., & Reilly, S. (2005) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00453.x · Cited by 159
Infant- and Young Child-feeding Practices in Bankura District, West Bengal, India
Mukhopadhyay, D. K., Sinhababu, A., Panja, T. K., Saren, A. B., Mandal, N. K., & Biswas, A. B. (2010) · Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition · doi:10.3329/jhpn.v28i3.5559 · Cited by 99
Co-sleeping, an ancient practice: issues of the past and present, and possibilities for the future
Thoman, E. B. (2006) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2005.12.001 · Cited by 74
Evolutionary perspectives on mother-infant sleep proximity and breastfeeding in a laboratory setting
Gettler, L. T., & McKenna, J. J. (2011) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.21426 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, A., & Rogan, W. J.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2004-05-01
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e435-e439
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2140952865
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.66
- 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
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.