↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Supplementation with multiple micronutrients for breastfeeding women for improving outcomes for the mother and baby

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
339 Mendeley
Title
Supplementation with multiple micronutrients for breastfeeding women for improving outcomes for the mother and baby
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010647.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah K Abe, Olukunmi O Balogun, Erika Ota, Kenzo Takahashi, Rintaro Mori

Abstract

Globally, more than two billion people are estimated to be deficient in key vitamins and minerals, particularly iodine, iron and zinc. The majority of these people live in low-income settings and are typically deficient in more than one micronutrient. However, micronutrient deficiency among breastfeeding mothers and their infants also remains an issue in high-income settings, specifically among women who avoid meat and/or milk, women who may lack sufficient supplies of vitamin B12 and vitamin D, and/or women who are iron-deficient. Young children, pregnant and lactating women are particularly vulnerable to micronutrient deficiencies. They not only have a relatively greater need for vitamins and minerals because of their physiological state, but are also more susceptible to the harmful consequences of deficiencies. Multiple-micronutrient supplementation might be an option to solve these problems. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effects of multiple-micronutrient supplementation in breastfeeding mothers on maternal and infant outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials of multiple-micronutrient supplementation of three or more micronutrients versus placebo, no supplementation or supplementation with two or fewer micronutrients, irrespective of dosage of micronutrients, in breastfeeding mothers. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We found no studies that compared multiple-micronutrient supplementation (with three or more micronutrients) versus supplementation with two or fewer micronutrients.Two small studies (involving a total of 52 women) were included. One study compared multiple micronutrients with placebo and the other study compared multiple micronutrients with a group who received no supplementation. The studies were carried out in Brazil (36 adolescent mothers) and the USA (16 women) and included women with a low socioeconomic status. A lack of information in the study reports meant that risk of bias could not be adequately assessed (unclear risk of bias for many domains). There were no quantitative data for any of this review's outcomes so meta-analysis was not possible.Neither of the studies reported on the primary outcomes of interest in this review: maternal morbidity (febrile illness, respiratory tract infection, diarrhoea), adverse effects of micronutrients within three days of receiving the supplement, infant mortality (defined as a child dying before completing the first year of age).One study reported qualitatively on maternal anaemia (a secondary outcome of this review) - the study found that multiple-micronutrient supplementation was effective for recuperating from anaemia but there were no data for inclusion in our analyses. Maternal satisfaction was not reported in the included studies. Similarly, none of this review's infant secondary outcomes were reported in the included studies: clinical micronutrient deficiency; morbidity episodes (febrile illness, respiratory tract infection, diarrhoea, other), adverse effects of micronutrients within three days of receiving the supplement. We found no evidence to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of multiple-micronutrient supplementation in improving health outcomes in mother and baby. The results of this review are limited by the small numbers of studies available, small sample sizes and the studies not reporting on the outcomes of interest in this review. There is no evidence to evaluate potential adverse effects of multiple-micronutrient supplements, particularly excess dosages.There is a need for high-quality studies to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple-micronutrient supplementation for breastfeeding women for improving outcomes for the mother and her baby. Further research should focus on whether multiple-micronutrient supplementation during lactation compared with none, a placebo or supplementation with fewer than two micronutrients is beneficial to maternal and infant health outcomes. Future studies should collect data on outcomes beyond micronutrient concentrations, for example: maternal and infant morbidity, adverse effects, maternal satisfaction, the risks of excess supplementation, and potential adverse interactions between the micronutrients and the other outcomes. This would help to bridge the gap between research on intermediary outcomes and health outcomes in order to develop sound policy in this field. Future studies could more precisely assess a variety of multiple-micronutrient combinations and different dosages and look at how these affect maternal and infant health outcomes. Larger studies with longer follow-up would improve the quality of studies and provide stronger evidence. In most of the included studies, bias could not be adequately assessed due to lack of information, therefore attention should be given to adequate methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, adequate methods of blinding of the participants, providers and the outcome assessors to improve the methodological quality of studies in this field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 1 <1%
Unknown 338 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 20%
Researcher 43 13%
Student > Bachelor 39 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 10%
Other 28 8%
Other 62 18%
Unknown 65 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 78 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 6%
Social Sciences 16 5%
Psychology 11 3%
Other 39 12%
Unknown 79 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 11 March 2021.
All research outputs
#646,921
of 17,698,884 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,609
of 11,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,506
of 271,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#41
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,698,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 271,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.