School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Women and Kids Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, Australia.
J Nutr. 2020 Jun 1;150(6):1652-1670. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxaa059.
As human milk (HM) composition varies by time and across even a single feed, methods of sample collection can significantly affect the results of compositional analyses and complicate comparisons between studies.
The aim was to compare the results obtained for HM macronutrient composition between studies utilizing different sampling methodologies. The results will be used as a basis to identify the most reliable HM sampling approach.
EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched for relevant articles. Observational and interventional studies were included, and at least 2 authors screened studies and undertook data extraction. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and previously published pragmatic score.
A total of 5301 publications were identified from our search, of which 101 studies were included (n = 5049 breastfeeding women). Methods used for HM collection were divided into 3 categories: collection of milk from all feeds over 24 h (32 studies, n = 1309 participants), collection at one time point (62 studies, n = 3432 participants), and "other methods" (7 studies, n = 308 participants). Fat and protein concentrations varied between collection methods within lactation stage, but there were no obvious differences in lactose concentrations. There was substantial variability between studies in other factors potentially impacting HM composition, including stage of lactation, gestational age, and analytical method, which complicated direct comparison of methods.
This review describes the first systematic evaluation of sampling methodologies used in studies reporting HM composition and highlights the wide range of collection methods applied in the field. This information provides an important basis for developing recommendations for best practices for HM collection for compositional analysis, which will ultimately allow combination of information from different studies and thus strengthen the body of evidence relating to contemporary HM composition. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42017072563, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017072563.
由于人乳(HM)的成分随时间和单次喂养而变化,因此采样方法会极大地影响成分分析的结果,并使研究之间的比较复杂化。
本研究旨在比较利用不同采样方法的研究中获得的人乳宏量营养素组成结果。这些结果将作为确定最可靠的人乳采样方法的基础。
在 EMBASE、MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus、Web of Science 和 ProQuest 数据库中搜索相关文章。纳入观察性和干预性研究,至少有 2 位作者筛选研究并进行数据提取。使用 Newcastle-Ottawa 量表和先前发表的实用评分进行质量评估。
从我们的搜索中确定了 5301 篇出版物,其中 101 项研究被纳入(n=5049 名母乳喂养妇女)。人乳采集方法分为 3 类:24 小时内收集所有喂养的乳汁(32 项研究,n=1309 名参与者)、一次采集(62 项研究,n=3432 名参与者)和“其他方法”(7 项研究,n=308 名参与者)。在泌乳期内,不同采集方法的脂肪和蛋白质浓度有所不同,但乳糖浓度没有明显差异。在其他可能影响人乳成分的因素方面,研究之间存在很大的差异,包括泌乳阶段、胎龄和分析方法,这使得方法之间的直接比较变得复杂。
本综述描述了首次对报告人乳成分的研究中采样方法的系统评估,并强调了在该领域应用的广泛的采集方法。这些信息为制定人乳采集分析成分的最佳实践建议提供了重要基础,最终将允许从不同研究中组合信息,从而加强与当代人乳成分相关的证据基础。该试验在 PROSPERO 中注册,注册号为 CRD42017072563,https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017072563。