Cited by 169Breastfeeding Practices and InfluencesDiabetes and associated disordersInfant Nutrition and Health

Reduced risk of IDDM among breast-fed children. The Colorado IDDM Registry

Mayer, Elizabeth J, Hamman, Richard F, Gay, Elizabeth C, Lezotte, Dennis C, Savitz, David A, Klingensmith, Georgeanna J·1988·Diabetes

Abstract

The hypothesis that breast-feeding can provide protection against the development of insulindependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) and would, therefore, be less common among subjects with IDDM was tested with a retrospective design. Cases (n = 268) were selected from the Colorado IDDM Registry and the Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes (Denver, CO). Two control groups were recruited, one from physicians' practices throughout Colorado (n = 291) and the second through random-digit dialing from the Denver area (n = 188). Cases were less likely to have been breast-fed than controls after adjustment for birth year, maternal age, maternal education, family income, race, and sex [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.70; 95% confidence interval (Cl) = 0.50–0.97]. This finding was consistent for both control groups and by birth-year intervals. A greater decrease in risk of IDDM was seen among subjects who had been breast-fed to an older age (for breast-feeding duration of ≥12 mo, adjusted OR = 0.54, 95% Cl = 0.27–1.08). The amount of IDDM that might be explained by breast-feeding habits (population percentage attributable risk) ranged from 2 to 26%, varying according to the breast-feeding prevalence reported in other studies. Replication of this work in different populations, controlled for the strong secular trends in breast-feeding habits, is critical before the hypothesis of protection is accepted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diab.37.12.1625

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence on whether early introduction of cow's milk or protective effects of breast milk contribute to childhood type 1 diabetes is equivocal and may depend on genetic susceptibility.

    “Evidence regarding early introduction of cow’s milk (or protective effects of breast milk consumption) in infants contributing to the development of childhood T1D is equivocal73–76 and may depend on genetic susceptibility77.”

    From Epidemiology of type 1 diabetes (2010) · cites this paper as [75]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayer, E. J., Hamman, R. F., Gay, E. C., Lezotte, D. C., Savitz, D. A., & Klingensmith, G. J.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Diabetes
Published
1988-12-01
Volume
37
Issue
12
Pages
1625-1632
ISSN
  • 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-327X
OpenAlex
W2006426218
Cited by
169
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (5r01am030747-03)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Breastfeeding Practices and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
Keywords
breastfeeding, type 1 diabetes, pediatric diabetes, diabetes risk factors, breastfeeding duration, population attributable risk
MeSH terms
Breast Feeding, Colorado, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Milk, Human, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors

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