medspecial.ru [тема: Соски - риски и выгоды]

Соски - риски и выгоды

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:50:00 +0300

Соски - риски и выгоды различные публикации из Пабмед http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed в форуме Форум для врачей.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD007202.

Pacifier use versus no pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding.
Jaafar SH, Jahanfar S, Angolkar M, Ho JJ.

Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ipoh Specialist Hospital, Raja Dihilir Street, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia, 30450.

Update in

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD007202.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS:
We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
08.08.13 14:50, Жозефа.

Соски - риски и выгоды

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:48:00 +0300

Соски - риски и выгоды различные публикации из Пабмед http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed в форуме Форум для врачей.
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012 Jul;22(4):286-91.

Knowledge of paediatricians regarding child oral health.
Balaban R, Aguiar CM, da Silva Araújo AC, Dias Filho EB.

Source
Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. raquelbalaban@hotmail.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
In dentistry, clinical practice is directed towards attitudes that promote oral health and the paediatricians occupy a privileged position in this process.

AIM:
To assess the knowledge and attitudes of paediatricians in relation to the oral health of their patients.

DESIGN:
A cross-sectional study was carried out at the Institute of Integrative Medicine Professor Fernando Figueira, Recife, Brazil. A total of 182 paediatricians participated by filling out a questionnaire.

RESULTS:
A total of 63.9% believed the first visit to the dentist should occur before the child completes 1 year of life. Moreover, 67.8% considered their knowledge on oral health to be insufficient. Approximately 78% of the paediatricians diagnosed caries through an analysis of cavities. Only 29.9% always recommended fluoride dentifrice. The term 'fluorosis' was unknown by 48.3% of the respondents. Concerning pacifiers, 32.6% did not allow it and 66.9% did not either recommend it or restrict it. A total of 83.4% classified the oral health content in their medical education as either nonexistent or deficient; this figure remained high (72.4%) in relation to residency.

CONCLUSIONS:
It is important to develop oral health information programmes to paediatricians. Information on oral health should be included in medical curricula and residency.
08.08.13 14:48, Жозефа.

Соски - риски и выгоды

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:47:00 +0300

Соски - риски и выгоды различные публикации из Пабмед http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed в форуме Форум для врачей.
Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129(6):1104-10. .

Injuries associated with bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups in the United States, 1991-2010.
Keim SA, Fletcher EN, TePoel MR, McKenzie LB.

Source
Center for Biobehavioral Health, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio 43205, USA. sarah.keim@nationwidechildrens.org

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
To describe the epidemiology of injuries related to bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups among young children in the United States.

METHODS:
A retrospective analysis was conducted by using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System for children <3 years of age treated in emergency departments (1991-2010) for an injury associated with a bottle, pacifier, or sippy cup.

RESULTS:
An estimated 45398 (95% confidence interval: 38 770-52 026) children aged <3 years were treated in emergency departments for injuries related to these products during the study period, an average of 2270 cases per year. Most injuries involved bottles (65.8%), followed by pacifiers (19.9%) and sippy cups (14.3%). The most common mechanism was a fall while using the product (86.1% of injuries). Lacerations comprised the most common diagnosis (70.4%), and the most frequently injured body region was the mouth (71.0%). One-year-old children were injured most often. Children who were aged 1 or 2 years were nearly 2.99 times (95% confidence interval: 2.07-4.33) more likely to sustain a laceration compared with any other diagnosis. Product malfunctions were relatively uncommon (4.4% of cases).

CONCLUSIONS:
This study is the first to use a nationally representative sample to examine injuries associated with these products. Given the number of injuries, particularly those associated with falls while using the product, greater efforts are needed to promote proper usage, ensure safety in product design, and increase awareness of American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations for transitioning to a cup and discontinuing pacifier use.
08.08.13 14:47, Жозефа.

Соски - риски и выгоды

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:46:00 +0300

Соски - риски и выгоды различные публикации из Пабмед http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed в форуме Форум для врачей.
Pediatrics. 2013 Apr;131(4):e1101-7.

Pacifier restriction and exclusive breastfeeding.
Kair LR, Kenron D, Etheredge K, Jaffe AC, Phillipi CA.

Source
Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. kair@ohsu.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
We tested the hypothesis that removing pacifiers from routine distribution in our mother-baby unit (MBU) would be associated with greater breastfeeding initiation or exclusivity during the birth hospitalization.

METHODS:
We retrospectively compared exclusive breastfeeding, breastfeeding plus supplemental formula feeding, and exclusive formula feeding rates for 2249 infants admitted to the MBU at our university teaching hospital during the 5 months before and 8 months after restriction of routine pacifier distribution. Formula supplementation, if not medically indicated, was discouraged per standard practice, but access to formula was not restricted.

RESULTS:
Of the 2249 infants, 79% were exclusively breastfed from July through November 2010, when pacifiers were routinely distributed. During the 8-month period after pacifier restriction, this proportion decreased significantly to 68% (P < .001). A corresponding increase from 18% to 28% was observed in the number of breastfed infants receiving supplemental formula feeds in the same period (P < .001). During the study period, the proportion of exclusively formula-fed infants increased from 1.8% to 3.4% (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Restricting pacifier distribution during the newborn hospitalization without also restricting access to formula was associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding, increased supplemental formula feeding, and increased exclusive formula feeding. Because high-quality, prospective medical literature addressing pacifier use and breastfeeding does not conclusively show an adverse relationship in women who are motivated to breastfeed, more studies are needed to help determine what effect, if any, pacifiers have on breastfeeding initiation and exclusivity in the immediate newborn period.
08.08.13 14:46, Жозефа.

Соски - риски и выгоды

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:44:00 +0300

Соски - риски и выгоды различные публикации из Пабмед http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed в форуме Форум для врачей.
Dent Update. 2013 Mar;40(2):92-4, 97-8, 101.

Pacifiers: a review of risks vs benefits.
Gederi A, Coomaraswamy K, Turner PJ.

Source
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Birmingham Dental Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Abstract
Pacifiers, otherwise known as dummies, have been around for many centuries. They have, however, taken many different forms, shapes and sizes. Their use is increasing and has remained controversial, with both potential risks and benefits identified in the medical and dental literature. The purpose of this article is to review some of the evidence available for and against the use of pacifiers and make recommendations for their application, maintenance and weaning. CLNICAL RELEVANCE: Dental healthcare professionals need to consider the evidence available for and against pacifiers when making recommendations to patients and their parents.
08.08.13 14:44, Жозефа.

Соски - риски и выгоды

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:44:00 +0300

Соски - риски и выгоды различные публикации из Пабмед http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed в форуме Форум для врачей.
Can Fam Physician. 2013 May;59(5):499-500.

Pacifier use in the first month of life.
Goldman RD.

Source
BC Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Room K4-226, Ambulatory Care Bldg, 4480 Oak St, Vancouver, BC V6H 3V4, Canada. rgoldman@cw.bc.ca

Abstract

QUESTION:
As a family physician who frequently attends deliveries and follows up with neonates, parents often ask me if they can provide their newborns with pacifiers in order to calm infants down, reduce crying, and improve sleep. Is pacifier use safe in the first month of life?

ANSWER:
While pacifiers are useful for soothing, there is concern that their use might cause early weaning of breastfeeding owing to "nipple confusion." Several organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund, recommend avoiding use of pacifiers in term infants who breastfeed. However, evidence suggests that it might not be pacifier use that causes premature cessation of breastfeeding, and that use of pacifiers might only be a sign of a maternal decision to stop breastfeeding.
08.08.13 14:44, Жозефа.