↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Supplementation with long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) to breastfeeding mothers for improving child growth and development

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
Title
Supplementation with long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) to breastfeeding mothers for improving child growth and development
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007901.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario F Delgado-Noguera, Jose Andres Calvache, Xavier Bonfill Cosp, Eleni P Kotanidou, Assimina Galli-Tsinopoulou

Abstract

Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA), especially docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are the most abundant fatty acids in the brain and are necessary for growth and maturation of an infant's brain and retina. LCPUFAs are named "essential" because they cannot be synthesised efficiently by the human body and come from maternal diet. It remains controversial whether LCPUFA supplementation to breastfeeding mothers is beneficial for the development of their infants. To assess the effectiveness and safety of supplementation with LCPUFA in breastfeeding mothers in the cognitive and physical development of their infants as well as safety for the mother and infant. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 August 2014), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), PubMed (1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (1974 to August 2014), LILACS (1982 to August 2014), Google Scholar (August 2014) and reference lists of published narrative and systematic reviews. Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of LCPUFA supplementation on breastfeeding mothers (including the pregnancy period) and their infants. Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, performed data extraction and evaluated data accuracy. We included eight randomised controlled trials involving 1567 women. All the studies were performed in high-income countries. The longest follow-up was seven years.We report the results from the longest follow-up time point from included studies. Overall, there was moderate quality evidence as assessed using the GRADE approach from these studies for the following outcomes measured beyond 24 months age of children: language development and child weight. There was low-quality evidence for the outcomes: Intelligence or solving problems ability, psychomotor development, child attention, and child visual acuity.We found no significant difference in children's neurodevelopment at long-term follow-up beyond 24 months: language development (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to 0.02; two trials, 187 participants); intelligence or problem-solving ability (three trials, 238 participants; SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36); psychomotor development (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.26; one trial, 113 participants); motor development (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.14; one trial, 115 participants), or in general movements (risk ratio, RR, 1.12, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.14; one trial, 77 participants; at 12 weeks of life). However, child attention scores were better at five years of age in the group of children whose mothers had received supplementation with fatty acids (mean difference (MD) 4.70, 95% CI 1.30 to 8.10; one study, 110 participants)). In working memory and inhibitory control, we found no significant difference (MD -0.02 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03 one trial, 63 participants); the neurological optimality score did not present any difference (P value: 0.55).For child visual acuity, there was no significant difference (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.71; one trial, 111 participants).For growth, there were no significant differences in length (MD -0.39 cm, 95% CI -1.37 to 0.60; four trials, 441 participants), weight (MD 0.13 kg, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.74; four trials, 441 participants), and head circumference (MD 0.15 cm, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.58; three trials, 298 participants). Child fat mass and fat mass distribution did not differ between the intervention and control group (MD 2.10, 95% CI -0.48 to 4.68; one trial, 115 participants, MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.69 to 0.69; one trial, 165 participants, respectively).One study (117 infants) reported a significant difference in infant allergy at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95), but not at medium-term follow-up (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.59).We found no significant difference in two trials evaluating postpartum depression. Data were not possible to be pooled due to differences in the describing of the outcome. One study (89 women) did not find any significant difference between the LCPUFA supplementation and the control group at four weeks postpartum (MD 1.00, 95%CI -1.72 to 3.72).No adverse effects were reported. Based on the available evidence, LCPUFA supplementation did not appear to improve children's neurodevelopment, visual acuity or growth. In child attention at five years of age, weak evidence was found (one study) favouring the supplementation. Currently, there is inconclusive evidence to support or refute the practice of giving LCPUFA supplementation to breastfeeding mothers in order to improve neurodevelopment or visual acuity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 335 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 20%
Student > Bachelor 47 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 13%
Researcher 41 12%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 62 18%
Unknown 56 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 16%
Psychology 41 12%
Social Sciences 24 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Other 45 13%
Unknown 69 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#3,386,994
of 17,067,437 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,131
of 11,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,070
of 240,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,067,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.