Skip to content

Advertisement

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

Effects of probiotics on child growth: a systematic review

  • Ojochenemi J Onubi1,
  • Amudha S Poobalan1Email author,
  • Brendan Dineen1,
  • Debbi Marais1 and
  • Geraldine McNeill1
Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition201534:8

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41043-015-0010-4

Received: 13 May 2013

Accepted: 23 July 2014

Published: 2 May 2015

Abstract

Background

Child undernutrition has short and long term consequence for both individuals and society. Previous studies show probiotics may promote child growth and have an impact on under-nutrition.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on three electronic databases to assess evidence. The outcome measured was change in weight or height. A narrative analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity of included studies.

Results

Twelve studies were included in the review of which ten were randomised controlled trials. A total of 2757 children were included, with 1598 from developing countries. The studies varied in type and quantity of probiotics given, duration of interventions, characteristics of participants, setting and units of outcome measures. Overall, five studies found a positive effect of probiotics on child growth. All five were conducted in developing countries with four studies conducted in mostly under-nourished children and one in well-nourished children. No significant effect on growth was found in the seven studies that were conducted in developed countries.

Conclusion

The limited evidence suggests that probiotics have the potential to improve child growth in developing countries and in under-nourished children. More research is needed to explore this further.

Keywords

ProbioticsChild growthSystematic review

Background

In 2011, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that globally, 115 million (18%) children under-five years of age were underweight and 178 million (28%) were stunted [1]. A quarter of all children in developing countries suffer from malnutrition [2] with the majority of them residing in Africa and Asia [1]. Under-nutrition in children under five years of age increases the risk of mortality and morbidity due to diarrhoea and increased risk of infections by an estimated 35% and 11% respectively [3]. It also leads to long-term consequences such as delay of educational, social and economic development [4]. There has been some progress in the reduction in the proportion of underweight children under five years of age in developing countries from 30% to 23% between 1990 and 2009 [5], however, not sufficient to meet the Millennium Development Goal to reduce the under-five mortality rate by two thirds by the year 2015 [5].

Infectious disease (particularly diarrhoeal disease) is one of the underlying causes of under-nutrition (both macro and micronutrient deficiencies) through different mechanisms [3]. These nutrients are essential for adequate child growth and development and continuous poor nutrition results in poor growth [3,4]. Child growth has been identified as an important indicator for measuring the nutritional status and health of populations [6].

The past decade has seen a new era in medical science with increased use of ‘probiotics’ for health benefits, especially in diarrhoeal diseases. Probiotics are defined as live organisms which have health benefits for the host if taken in adequate amounts [7]. There have been recent reviews published on the effects of probiotics in children with specific disease conditions such as acute infectious diarrhoea [8], antibiotic-associated diarrhoea [9], necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants [10], childhood atopy, Helictobacter pylori infection and infantile colic [11].

Probiotics have been shown to reduce the risk of infections such as infectious diarrhoea [8,12,13] as well as the incidence and duration of upper respiratory tract infections [12,14]. Probiotics may improve child growth through the prevention of infections and micronutrient deficiencies as they have been shown to improve the absorption of certain nutrients (calcium, zinc and vitamin B12) [12,15] and reduce the risk of anaemia [16].

Probiotics have been ingested for centuries, as part of fermented food products [7] and they have been isolated from traditional fermented products such as fermented milk ‘wara’ in Nigeria [17] and ‘Kule naoto’ among the Maasai in Kenya [18]. Fermentation is widely practiced and accepted in many regions of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia where fermented foods form a significant portion of the diets of rural communities [19]. In many African countries, the fermentation process is used to prepare complementary foods and therefore fermented foods are important in infant and child nutrition [20]. The process of fermentation is economical [19] and the potential use of fermented food to improve infant and young child feeding was explored during a joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WHO workshop held in 1995 [21].

Consequently, the use of locally grown/culturally acceptable probiotic products could be used to improve the growth of the children at a low cost and could be implemented at large scale to reach the target community [22]. In spite of this recognition, only two systematic reviews to date have investigated the effects of probiotics on weight gain [23,24]. Both reviews however, focused on specific probiotic strains in target populations i.e. the review by Steenhout et al. in 2009 assessed the effects of bifidobacterium lactis in children younger than six months [24] and Million et al. assessed effects of lactobacillus species on weight gain in animals and healthy humans [23]. The aim of this review is to add to the evidence of the effects of probiotics on child growth irrespective of age, type of probiotic bacteria or nutritional status of the children.

Methods

Three electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched using a robust search strategy. Literature published between 1947 and July 2011 was searched with no language restrictions. The Medline strategy (Additional file 1) was modified for the other databases. The Medline and Embase searches were updated using the same search strategy on the 26th October 2012 to identify any recent studies. All study designs that looked at use of any probiotic product in well-nourished and under-nourished children were included in the review. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and text words for ‘probiotics’, and ‘fermented milk product’ were combined appropriately with terms for ‘growth’, ‘anthropometry’ and ‘children’ to identify relevant studies. Studies that looked at probiotic use for the management of a disease condition; in children who had a specific disease condition rather than the management of under-nutrition and those that targeted other population groups such as pregnant women and children with impaired growth at birth were excluded.

Abstracts were read by two independent reviewers (OO and AP) to identify relevant studies. Full text articles of potentially eligible studies that met the selection criteria were obtained. Initially, the papers were critically appraised by two independent reviewers (OO and AP) until high consistency between the reviewers was achieved, and thereafter by one reviewer (OO). Reference lists of all included studies and review articles identified by the search were also checked to identify other relevant studies. One French language paper was professionally translated to English. All studies were assessed for methodological quality using a modified Cochrane review quality assessment form [25]. The reviewers were not blinded to the authors, journals, country of publications, results and conclusions of the papers.

A data extraction form was designed using guidelines from the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) checklist, piloted and amended before being used by two independent reviewers (OO and AP) to extract the data from the papers [26]. As available data in the published papers was sufficient for the narrative analysis that was conducted in this review, authors of primary studies were not contacted for any further information. Reviewers consulted regularly with each other to discuss any inclusion queries as they arose. Outcome measures assessed were change in weight, length/height, head circumference, Body Mass Index (BMI) and mortality rate. A narrative synthesis was conducted as meta-analysis of the data could not be undertaken due to heterogeneity of the studies in terms of different probiotic preperations used, age range of the participants, the timing of measurement of outcome variables and the growth measurement units (g/day, z-scores) between studies.

Ethical clearance

Ethical clearance was not required as this is a systematic review of literature, and anonymized data was used.

Results of the literature search

The initial systematic search identified 1056 citations, of which 49 potentially eligible articles were critically appraised. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1 – Prisma statement). The update search identified two recent relevant articles [27,28] giving a total of twelve studies to be included in this review.
Figure 1

Flow chart of the systematic review results.

Ten of the studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [12,16,27-34] and two were non-randomised clinical controlled trials [13,35]. Five of the studies were conducted in developing countries in Asia [12,13,16,28,29]. The basic characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. For this review we defined the study populations as ‘well-nourished’ if the anthropometric measurements showed that the majority of children were not stunted or wasted, and/or if the authors presented them as ‘healthy’; and as ‘under-nourished’ if the majority of children were underweight, stunted or wasted or if the authors presented them as ‘unhealthy’. Eight of the studies were conducted in well-nourished children [27,29-35] while four were conducted in under-nourished children [12,13,16,28]. All the studies in under-nourished children were conducted in developing countries while those on well-nourished children were conducted in developed countries except one study from Indonesia [29]. The age of the participants ranged from less than 28 days [30,31,33-35], to between one month and five years [12,13,16,27-29,32].
Table 1

Basic characteristics of studies

Citation Country

Sample size(n)

Age/Gender: M/F

Description of intervention (I) and control (C) groups

Duration of intervention and Follow up

Outcome measures

Healthy children

Firmansyah et al. 2009 [29] Indonesia

n = 393

12 months

I: Bifdobacterium longum and Lactobacillus rhamnosusin

Duration:12 months

Weight gain per day and change in length measured between 12 months and 16 months

I: 199

Gender: both (M/F):

200 ml Milk twice daily + prebiotics and LC-PUFA + Normal Diet

No Follow up

Other unrelated outcomes (motor and behavioural functions were measured at the end of the intervention)

C: 194

I = 101/98

C: 200 ml Milk twice daily + Normal Diet with no probiotics

Measurements for weight gain taken after 4 months (16 months of age)

C = 102/92

Scalabrin et al. 2009 [33] USA

n = 286

14 days

I: Lactobacillus rhamnosus in

Duration: from 14–120 days of age

Weight growth rate between 14 and 120 days of age

I(a): 94

Gender: both

(a): Extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF)

No follow-up

Length

I(b): 98

(M/F):

(b): Partially hydrolyzed formula (PHF)

 

Head circumference

C: 94

I(a): 50/44

C: EHF without probiotic

 

(Length and head circumference measures were obtained at 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 days of age)

I(b): 49/49

All children were exclusively formula fed and on demand

C: 44/50

Saavedra et al. 2004 [32] USA

n = 131

3–24 months

I (High supplement (HS)): 1 x 107 Bifdobacterium lactis Bb12 and streptococcus thermophilus CFU/g of standard milk based formula

Mean duration: 210 ± 127 days

Monthly weight and length

I(HS): 44

Gender: both (M/F):

I (Low supplement(LS)): 1 x 106 Bifdobacterium lactis Bb12 and streptococcus thermophilus CFU/g of standard milk based formula

No follow-up

I(LS): 43

I(HS): 22/17

C: Standard milk based formula with no probiotics

C: 44

I(LS): 21/19

Intake in each group had to be ≥ 240 ml/day for more than 14 days

C: 16/24

Gibson et al. 2009 [30] Australia

n = 142

0–10 days

I: Bifdobacterium lactis 3 · 85 x 108 CFU+

Duration: 7 months

Weight gain per day, recumbent length, head circumference for 7 months, weight gain (g/d) from day 14 to day 119 (period of exclusively feeding the test formulas)

I: 72

Gender: both

LC-PUFA(DHA) and AA in infant formula

No Follow up

C: 70

Intervention Female: 56%

C: infant formula

 

Others were BMI, and occurrence of adverse events

Control

 

(Measurements conducted at approx. 2, 4, 6, 13, 17, 26, 30 weeks of age)

Female: 53%

All children were exclusively formula fed but were allowed weaning from 4 months during which at least 500 ml/day of formula to be consumed

Ziegler et al. 2003 [34] USA

n = 122

6–10 days

I(RP + P): Bifdobacterium lactis in reduced protein formula (RP)

Duration: Fed till 112 days of age (approximately 4 months of age)

Weight and length gain per day between 8-56 days, 56–112 days and 8–112 days

I(RP + P): 40

Gender: both M/F ratio

I(RP): Reduced protein formula

I(RP): 40

Not reported

C: Normal protein formula

No Follow up

C: 42

Puccio et al. 2007 [31] Italy

n = 138

Full term infants (<14 days)

I: 2 x 107 Bifdobacterium longum BL999 + 4 g/litre prebiotic in Infant formula

Duration: 7 months

Mean weight gain, recumbent length, head circumference at 14, 28, 56, 84 and 112 days of age

I: 42

Gender M/F:

C: Formula without probiotics

No Follow up

C: 55

I: 20/22

C: 25/30

Huet et al. 2006 [35] France

n = 203

1 – 28 days

I: Bifdobacterium lactis infant formula

Duration: 90 days

Daily weight gain, daily increase in height from day 0 to day 90

I: 117

Gender: both M/F ratio not reported

C: Infant formula

No follow up

C: 86

Gil-Campos et al. 2011 [27] Spain

N = 137

One month old infants

I: 107 cfu/g Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 + galactooligosaccharides (0.3 g/100 ml) in infant formula

Duration: 5 months

Average daily weight gain between baseline (one month) and 4 months of age

I: 66

Gender M/F:

C: galactooligosaccharides (0.3 g/100 ml) in infant formula

No follow up

C: 71

I: 34/27

C: 38/22

Undernourished children

Sazawal et al. 2010 [16] India

n = 624

1–3 years

I: 1.9 x 107 CFU per day of Bifdobacterium lactis HN019 + 2.4 g/day prebiotic in milk powder

Duration: One year

Weight gain at 6 months and 1 year

I: 312

Gender: both M/F ratio not reported

C: milk powder

No follow-up

C: 312

Saran et al. 2002 [13] India

n = 100

2–5 years

I: Lactobacillus acidophilus in curd (beet juice added) 1 x 108 organisms/gm

Duration: 6 months

Body weight, height for 6 months

I: 50

Gender: both

C: Isocaloric supplement (biscuits)

No follow up

Incidence of morbidity with respect to diarrhoea- frequency, severity and duration

C: 50

Equal numbers

He et al. 2005 [12] China

n = 402

3–5 years

I: Thermophilus streptococci, Bulgaria lactobacilli and bifidum bacteria in yogurt

Duration: 9 months

Body weight, height at 3,6 and 9 months

I: 201

Gender: both

+ normal diet

No follow up

C: 201

M/F:

C: Normal Diet

I: 106/95

C: 111/90

Surono et al. 2011 [28] Indonesia

n = 79

15-54 months

I: 1 mg lyophilized Enterococcus faecium IS-27526 (2.31 x 108 cfu/day) in 125 ml commercial UHT low fat milk

Duration: 90 days

Body weight

I: 39

Gender: both

 

No follow up

C: 40

M/F:

C: 1 mg maltodextrin in 125 ml commercial UHT low fat milk

I: 17/22

 

C: 17/23

NCHS: National centre for health statistics.

Probiotics were used in different combinations i.e. as a single probiotic [13,16,27,28,30,31,33-35] or multiple probiotics [12,29,32]; alone [12,13,27,28,32-35] or in combination with other products such as prebiotics [16,31] and long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA) [30] or both prebiotics and LC-PUFA [29]. Ten of the studies [16,27-35] compared a probiotic enriched formula/food/milk in the intervention group with a control group who had the same products but no probiotic added to it. One study compared probiotic food with no intervention (i.e. just a normal diet) in the other group [12] and another study compared probiotic enriched yoghurt with biscuits of the same caloric value [13].

The duration of supplementation with probiotics and timing of anthropometric measurements also varied across studies, from three months to one year. All the 12 included studies in this review investigated the effects of probiotics on growth in children. However, five of them measured the ‘difference in growth’ as their primary outcome by comparing children who were fed with probiotics with those who were not [12,13,16,28,29]. The seven other studies [27,30-35] measured the ‘safety and tolerance’ of probiotics in infant formula as their primary outcomes while measuring ‘growth’ as a secondary outcome.

Results of the review

Well-nourished children

Out of eight studies that were conducted among well-nourished children, only one study conducted in Indonesia, showed a significant difference in weight gain (0.93 g/day; p = 0.025) and weight-for-age (p = 0.036) between the intervention and control groups [29]. This was significantly higher than the growth standards recommended by the WHO [36] for that age group. The intervention group were given probiotics in addition to prebiotics and LC-PUFA and compared with a control group following a normal diet for a four month study period (Table 2, Section 1). Two major differences between this Indonesian study which showed improved weight gain and the other studies, are the settings of the studies and the age range of the participants. The children in the Indonesian study were older (aged 12 months and older) than the children in the other seven studies who were either less than 28 days of age [30,31,33-35], one month [27], or seven months of age [32]. With regards to the difference in settings, the study was conducted in a developing country (Indonesia) while the other seven studies were conducted in developed countries [27,30-35]. No significant improvements were seen in any of the other growth outcomes measured by height, head circumference or BMI.
Table 2

Effects of probiotics on child growth

Section 1: In healthy children

Author, year

Sample details

Outcomes and units of measurement

Results

Country

 

Type of study

 

Quality

 

Firmansyah et al. 2009 [29]

Intervention:

Outcome:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference (CI)

p-value

Indonesia

Age: 12 months

Weight, Length, Head circumference, Body Mass Index (BMI)

Sample size

161

 

153

 

RCT

Sample size: 199

 

Weight (g/day)

7.57 ± 4.13

 

6.64 ± 4.08

0.93 (0.12-1.95)

0.025

Quality:

Control:

Units of measurement:

Change in weight-for-age

0.11 ± 0.40

 

0.02 ± 0.40

0.09 (0.01-0.18)

0.036

Unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment

Age: 12 months

Weight:

Weight (g)

9711 ± 1142

 

9643 ± 1218

Not reported

Not reported

 

Sample size: 194

Weight gain (g/day)

Length (cm)

77.8 ± 3.0

 

77.9 ± 3.4

Not reported

Not significant

  

Change in weight-for-age after 4 months

Head circumference (cm)

46.3 ± 1.3

 

46.4 ± 1.4

Not reported

Not significant

  

Weight (g)

BMI (kg/m2)

16.0

 

15.9

Not reported

Not reported

  

Length: Length after 4 months (cm)

     
  

Head circumference: Head circumference after 4 months (cm)

     
  

BMI: kg/m2

     

Scalabrin et al. 2009 [33]

Intervention:

Outcome:

Outcome

Intervention 1- EHF + P

Intervention 2 - PHF + P

Control EHF

Mean difference

p-value

USA

Age: 14 days

Weight, Length, Head

Sample size

63

77

70

  

RCT

Sample size:

circumference

Weight gain (g/day)

28.4 ± 0.67

26.8 ± 0.76

27.6 ± 0.72

Not reported

Not Significant

Quality:

-Extensively hydrolysed formula with probiotic (EHF + P): 94

Units of measurement:

Length (cm/day)

0.11 ± 0.002

0.11 ± 0.002

0.11 ± 0.002

No difference

 

Low risk of bias for all parameters

-Partially hydrolysed formula with probiotic (PHF + P): 98

Weight:

Head circumference (cm/day)

0.05 ± 0.001

0.05 ± 0.001

0.05 ± 0.001

No difference

 
  

Weight gain (g/day)

ANOVA, 1-tailed t-tests

     
 

Control:

Length: change in length (cm/day)

      
 

Age: 14 days

       
 

Sample size: Extensively hydrolysed formula without probiotic (EHF): 94

Head circumference:

      
  

Change in head circumference (cm/day)

      

Saavedra et al. 2004 [32]

Intervention:

Outcome:

Outcome

Intervention 1 (HS)

Intervention 2 (LS)

Control

Mean difference

p-value

USA

Age: 3–24 months

Weight and Height

Sample size

39

39

40

  

RCT

Sample size:

Units of measurement:

Change in weight-for-age

0.09 ± 0.64

0.06 ± 0.72

0.16 ± 0.69

Not reported

Not significant

Quality:

-High Supplement probiotic in formula (HS): 39

Weight:

Change in weigh-for-length

0.40 ± 0.85

0.53 ± 1.10

0.45 ± 0.75

Not reported

Not significant

Unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment

-Low Supplement probiotic in formula (LS): 39

change in weight-for-age z-score

Change in height-for-age

−0.06 ± 0.44

−0.09 ± 0.60

−0.04 ± 0.59

Not reported

Not significant

 

Control- formula

change in weight-for-length score

      
 

Age: 3–24 months

Height:

      
 

Sample size: 40

change in height- for-age z-score

      

Gibson et al. 2009 [30]

Intervention:

Outcome:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

Australia

Age: <10 days

Weight, Length, Head Circumference, BMI

Sample size:

62

 

62

  

RCT

Sample size: 72

Units of measurement:

Weight gain (g/day)

M(24) 33 · 6 ± 7 · 5

 

M(19) 31 · 6 ± 7 · 7

1.5 (−0.08-3.1)

Not significant

Quality:

Control:

Weight : Weight gain (g/day)

 

F(31) 28 · 1 ± 5 · 8

 

F(24) 26 · 5 ± 4 · 9

  

Low risk of bias in all parameters

Age: <10 days Sample size: 70

Length: Length gain (mm/month)

Length gain (mm/month)

M(24) 35 ± 3 · 7

 

M(19) 37 · 3 ± 4 · 9

Not reported

Not significant

  

Head circumference: Change in head circumference (mm/month)

 

F(27) 32 · 8 ± 4

 

F(23) 32 ± 4 · 6

  
  

BMI: change in BMI per month (kg/cm2/month)

Head circumference (mm/month)

M(23) 18 ± 2 · 4

 

M(19) 17 · 5 ± 3 · 4

Not reported

Not significant

    

F(29) 16 · 1 ± 2 · 7

 

F(24) 16 ± 3

  
   

BMI (kg/cm2/month)

M(24) 1 · 1 ± 0 · 6

 

M(19) 1 ± 0 · 5

Not reported

Not significant

    

F(27) 0 · 9 ± 0 · 5

 

F(23) 0 · 8 ± 0 · 4

  
   

ANOVA correcting for sex

     

Zeigler et al. 2003 [34]

Intervention:

Outcome:

Outcome

Intervention (RP + P)

Intervention (RP)

Control

Mean difference

p-value

USA

Age: 6–10 days

Weight and Height

Sample size

28

27

C:33

  

RCT

Sample size:

Units of measurement:

Weight gain (g/day)

28.13 ± 4.63§

29.3 ± 5.41§

31.05 ± 5.88§

Not Reported

0.229

Quality:

RP + P

Weight: g/day

      

The risk of bias in adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding was unclear while there was a high risk of bias in reporting of incomplete outcome data

(Bifidobacterium lactis in reduced protein formula): 40

Length: mm/day

 

M 13 32.1 ± 5.2

M 8 32.0 ± 4.7

M 19 32.2 ± 5.2

  
    

F 15 24.7 ± 4.9

F 19 28.2 ± 5.8

F 14 29.5 ± 6.9

  
 

RP (Reduced protein formula): 40

 

Length gain (mm/day)

M 13 1.14 ± 0.11

M 8 1.14 ± 0.09

M19 1.16 ± 0.09

Not reported

0.377

    

F 15 1.02 ± 0.07

F 19 1.06 ± 0.10

F14 1.07 ± 0.14

  
 

Control:

      
 

Age: 6–10 days

      
 

Sample size

      
 

Normal protein formula: 42

      

Puccio et al. 2007 [31]

Intervention:

Outcomes:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference (90% CI)

p-value

Italy

Age: <14 days

Weight, height, head circumference

Sample size

42

 

55

 

RCT

Sample size: 65

Units of measurement:

Weight (g/day)

Not reported

 

Not reported

0.50 (−1.48 ± 2.48)

Not reported

Quality: Risk of bias was unclear in both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment

Control:

Weight: weight gain (g/day)

Height (mm/month)

M 35.1 ± 4.2

 

M: 35 ± 4.4

Not reported

0.1

 

Age: <14 days

Height: change in height (mm/month)

 

F 32.2 ± 4.3

 

F : 32.2 ± 4.6

 

0.1

 

Sample size: 69

Head circumference: Change in head circumference (mm/month)

Head circumference (mm/month)

M: 17.9 ± 2.7

 

M : 17.4 ± 2.9

Not reported

>0.1 for all

    

F: 16.0 ± 2.8

 

F: 15.5 ± 3.0

 

Huet et al., 2006 [35]

Intervention:

Outcomes:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

France

Age: 1–28 days

Weight, Height, Head circumference

Sample size

117

 

86

 

CCT

Sample size: 117

Units of measurement:

Weight gain (g/day)

29.6 ± 6.6

 

29.8 ± 6.3

Not reported

Not significant

Quality: The study had high risk of bias in adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding.

Control:

Weight: weight gain (g/day)

Height (cm/day)

0.110 ± 0.018

 

0.111 ± 0.018

Not reported

Not significant

 

Age: 1-28 days

Height: height gain (cm/day)

Head circumference(mm/day)

0.56 ± 0.12

 

0.55 ± 0.12

Not reported

Not significant

 

Sample size: 86

Head circumference: change in head circumference (mm/day)

      

Gil-Campos et al. 2011 [27]

Intervention:

Outcomes:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

Spain

Age: 1 month

Weight, Height, Head Circumference

Sample size

61

 

60

 

RCT

Sample size: 71

Units of measurement:

Weight gain (g/day)

24.8 ± 5.1

 

25.3 ± 6.0

Not reported

Not significant

Quality: There was low risk of bias in all parameters.

Control:

Weight: weight gain (g/day), weight at 6 months (kg), weight-for-age z-scores at 6 months

Length gain (mm/day)

0.96 ± 0.3

 

0.90 ± 0.2

Not reported

Not significant

 

Age: 1 month

Length: Length gain (mm/day), Length at 6 months (cm), Length for age z-scores at 6 months

Head Circumference (mm/day)

0.43 ± 0.1

 

0.421 ± 0.1

Not reported

Not significant

   

Weight at 6 months (kg)

8.0 ± 0.9

 

7.9 ± 1.0

Not reported

Not significant

 

Sample size: 66

Head Circumference: Head Circumference at 6 months (cm), Head circumference z-scores at 6 months

Length at 6 months (cm)

68.1 ± 3.4

 

66.6 ± 2.5

Not reported

0.038

   

Head Circumference at 6 months (cm)

43.7 ± 1.6

 

43.7 ± 1.3

Not reported

Not significant

   

Weight for age z-scores at 6 months

Not reported

 

Not reported

Not reported

p = 0.061

   

Length for age z-scores at 6 months

Not reported

 

Not reported

Not reported

p = 0.021

   

Head circumference z-scores at 6 months

Not reported

 

Not reported

Not reported

p = 0.453

Section 2: In under-nourished children

    

Author, year

Sample details

Outcomes and units of measurement

Results

    

Country

 

Type of study

 

Quality

 

Nutritional status

        

Sazawal et al. 2010 [16] India

Intervention:

Outcomes:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

RCT

Age: 1–3 years

Weight, height

Sample size

257

 

245

 

Quality: The risk of bias was low for all parameters

Sample size: 312

Units of measurement:

Weight gain (g/year)

2,130 ± 590

 

2,000 ± 590

130 (30–230)

0.02

None severely malnourished

Control:

Weight: weight gain (g/year), change in weight for age z-score

Change in weight-for-age z-score

0.34 ± 0.54

 

0.26 ± 0.54

0.08 (−0.02 to 0.17)

0.12

Nutritional status

        

Normal

Age: 1–3 years

 

Height (cm/year)

8.49 ± 1.41

 

8.28 ± 1.35

0.20 (−0.04 to 0.45)

0.09

I: 107 (34.3%) C: 95 (30.4%)

Sample size: 312

Height: height gain (cm/year), change in height for age z-score after one year

change in height for age z-score after 1 year

0.21 ± 0.42

 

0.18 ± 0.49

0.03 (−0.06 to 0.10)

0.55

Wasted

  

Difference in weight/height

0.44 ± 0.65

 

0.34 ± 0.63

0.09 (−0.01 to 0.21)

0.09

I: 15 (4.8%) C: 14 (4.5%)

 

Stunted

   

I: 137 (43.9%) C: 157 (50.3%)

 

Wasted and stunted

 

I: 53 (17.0%) C: 46 (14.7%)

 

Saran et al., 2002 [13]

Intervention:

Outcomes:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

India

Age: 2–5 years

Weight, height

Sample size

50

 

50

 

Non-randomised controlled trial

Sample size: 50

Units of measurement:

Weight (g/6 months)

1,290 ± 730

 

810 ± 840

0.002

Not reported

Quality: high risk of bias for adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding.

Control:

Weight: weight gain (g per 6 months)

Height: (cm/6months)

3.21 ± 1.48

 

1.74 ± 0.80

Not reported

0.0001

Nutritional status

        

Stunted (height for age) and matched in both groups

Age: 2–5 years

Height: height gain (cm per 6 months)

      
 

Sample size: 50

       

He et al., 2005 [12]

Intervention:

Outcomes:

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

China

Age: 3–5 years

Weight, height

Sample size

201

 

201

 

RCT

Sample size: 201

 

Gram per 3, 6 and 9 months

700 ± 430

 

490 ± 350

Not reported

0.01

Quality:

Control:

Units of measurement: Weight: Weight gain (g per 3, 6 and 9 months), Change in weight-for-age at 3, 6 and 9 months

 

980 ± 620

 

800 ± 600

 

0.01

There was an unclear risk of bias in adequate sequence generation and high risk of bias in both allocation concealment and blinding

Age: 3–5 years

 

1,420 ± 760

 

1,200 ± 670

 

0.01

 

Sample size: 201

Change in weight-for-age at 3, 6 and 9 months

0.139 ± 0.228

 

0.031 ± 0.184

 

0.01

Nutritional status

        

Undernourished - weight for age and/or height for age were below reference values

 

Height: change in height for age z-scores at 9 months

 

0.058 ± 0.306

 

−0.047 ± 0.28

 

0.01

    

0.078 ± 0.365

 

−0.043 ± 0.28

 

0.01

   

Change in height for age z-scores at 9 months

0.123 ± 0.168

 

0.077 ± 0.175

Not reported

<0.01

Surono et al. 2011 [28] Indonesia

Intervention:

Outcomes: Weight

Outcome

Intervention

 

Control

Mean difference

p-value

RCT

Age: 15–54 months

Units of measurement:

Sample size

37

 

39

  
 

Sample size: 39

Weight: Mean gain in bodyweight after 90 days

Mean bodyweight gain (g)

1280 ± 940

 

990 ± 990

Not reported

Not reported

Quality:

Control:

 

There was an unclear risk of bias in adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding.

Age: 15–54 monthss

 

Nutritional status

 

Underweight

Sample size: 40

 

I: 20 C: 20

 

Severe Underweight

 

I: 7 C:10

 

Normal Bodyweight

 

I:10

 

C:9

 

No baseline differences between groups; Values presented in mean ± SD unless specified; NHCS: National Health Centre Statistics; MUAC: Mid Upper Arm Circumference.

§The results of weight gain per day for both sexes were combined and presented by the authors.

Under-nourished children

Four studies were conducted among under-nourished children between the ages of one and five years [12,13,16,28]. All four studies were conducted in developing countries. In two of these studies, all the children were under-nourished [12,13], while in the remaining two studies there was a mixture of children who were normal weight, underweight, stunted and/or wasted (Table 2, Section 2) [16,28]. All four studies found improved weight in the probiotic group compared with the control group. Three studies showed increased weight gain in grams after six (1290 ± 730 vs 810 ± 840) [13], nine (1420 ± 760 vs 1200 ± 670) [12], and 12 (2130 ± 590 vs 2000 ± 590) [16] months of supplementation in the probiotic groups compared with the control groups respectively. However, the mean differences were not reported in any of the studies. He et al. [12] also noted significant increases in change in weight-for-age z-scores. In the fourth study by Surono et al. [28], the mean weight gain of mostly under-nourished children in the probiotic group was 1280 ± 940g compared with the children in the control group with mean weight gain of 990 ± 990 g. This difference became significant when the results were stratified by nutritional status (normal weight, underweight and severly underweight) as children with normal body weight in the probiotic group weighed significantly more than those in the control group. Regarding the other growth outcomes, two studies found a significant difference in height of the children [12,13]. In He et al. [12], the children in the probiotic group had a change in height-for-age z-score of 0.123 ± 0.168 while those in the control group had a change in height-for-age z-score of 0.077 ± 0.175 at nine months of supplementation (p < 0.01). Again, this increase in height-for-age z-scores in the probiotic group was significantly higher than the reference value recommended by the WHO for children of that age group while in the control group, the change was less than the WHO reference value [36]. The other study by Saran et al. [13] showed that, after 6 months, the children in the probiotic group grew an average of 3.21 ± 1.48 centimetres in length compared to the control group 1.74 ± 0.80cm (p = 0.0001).

Discussion

This review found a benefit of dietary intake of probiotics in weight and length/height gain, potentially in children who are under-nourished and also healthy children living in developing countries. In clinics worldwide, the WHO growth charts are used for monitoring the growth of children in relation to that of the expected value for age [36]. Two out of the five studies [12,29] that showed significant improvement in growth, noted that the children in the probiotic groups had growth curves that were significantly higher than [12] or closer to [29] the WHO reference value than the children in the control groups. One other notable finding in one study [12] is the improvement in height-for-age z-scores in children who took probiotics compared to those in the control group. Change in height-for-age z-scores indicates catch-up growth in children [37], therefore, probiotics may help in promoting compensatory growth of children with stunted growth [3]. The effect of probiotics on the growth of under-nourished children was also investigated in a large RCT (PRONUT study) by Kerac et al. [38]. In this study, probiotics did not seem to confer any benefits on the health or the nutritional status of these children. However, compared to the other studies conducted in undernourished children in this review who were community living and suffered from chronic undernutrition, the children in the PRONUT study were acutely malnourished and needed hospital admission, almost half were HIV positive and all the children were on antibiotics. The lack of effects in the PRONUT study could have been confounded by the fact that the children were HIV positive, on antibiotics and acutely malnourished.

No evidence was found for a benefit of dietary intake of probiotics on growth in well-nourished children in developed countries. Some benefit was shown in terms of weight gain in the one study in well-nourished children in a developing country [29]. The benefit shown in this study as compared to the others in well-nourished children may be due to various factors including the addition of prebiotics and LC-PUFA with the probiotics, the age of the children and/or the developing country setting. While some studies have shown there could be a synergistic effect when combining pre- and probiotics and a modulation of the immune system by combining probiotics with LC-PUFA [7], other studies in this review that also added either prebiotics or LC-PUFA did not show any significant benefits in developed country settings [30,31]. This indicates that the differences in regimens are probably not responsible for the difference in findings. The fact that this study was conducted on an older group of children (12 months of age compared to the other children who were less than 28 days at start of study) might be another likely reason for the differences found. Findings in the review by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) indicate that probiotics administered to children younger than four months of age do not lead to any consistent clinical effects such as reduction of gastro-intestinal infections unlike when given beyond early infancy [39]. Most children in the other studies of well-nourished children were younger than four months old, which highlights the need for further research on older children. Furthermore, the difference in benefits to growth may be related to a number of factors peculiar to developing country settings. It is worth noting that environmental factors such as the diet, eating practices and sanitation may affect the efficacy of probiotics by modifying the commensal gut flora [14], hence need to be taken into consideration while advocating the use of probiotics in different settings. Only one study was conducted among well-nourished children in developing country making it difficult to generalise the results for healthy children in both developed and developing country settings. Therefore, more research is needed particularly among healthy children in developing countries for effective comparison. In addition, only published studies were included in this review which introduces bias and limiting the evidence.

Although this review did not aim to assess the benefits of specific probiotic strains on diferent populations, it is worth noting that Bifidobacterium lactis HN019; Bifdobacterium longum and Lactobacillus rhamnosus; lactobacillus acidophilus; thermophilus streptococci, bulgaria lactobacilli and bifidum bacteria; and enterococcus faecium IS-27526 were all highlighted as beneficial strains in general by the included studies. Different types of probiotics have distinct effects and even those strains that are closely related may have different clinical effects [7,8]. There is an emphasis by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations that the effects of a specific strain should not be assumed to occur in other strains [7]. More research is needed on the specific strains that improve growth in children in developing countries.

Probiotic containing food used in the studies in developing countries were from the local markets [12] or locally prepared probiotics [13,28]. Given the benefits of probiotics on child growth as hightlighted in this review, use of readily available and less expensive fermented food products as a vehicle of probiotics might play an important role in improving nutrition, treating enteric infections [40] and promoting compensatory growth in children in developing countries through these different mechanisms. However, more research is needed into the consumer confidence, acceptability of fermented products as a source of probiotics and also the safety aspects before promoting fermented foods in complementary feeding in developing countries. Although the administration of probiotics was not associated with serious adverse effects from any of the studies included in this review, it is recommended that probiotics be given to critically ill or immuno-suppressed children with caution as there have been rare cases of probiotic infections in immuno-suppressed individuals and people with indwelling catheters [8]. In spite of some probiotics studies [38] showing no difference in probiotic related sepsis among acutely malnourished and immunocompromised children, the dearth of information on the safety issue of probiotics in malnourished children should be considered before promoting probiotics in this specific population.

What is already known and what this review adds

Previous reviews have shown the effectiveness of probiotics on growth in children with specific disease conditions, whereas this is the first to report on the effects of probiotics on measures of child growth in non clinical settings. It is important to note that due to the paucity of the number of studies that assessed the effects of probiotics on child growth, all studies regardless of the vehicle used in administering the probiotic were included. Usually probiotics are added to infant formulas in order to modify the micro-biota of babies who are not breastfed to make it on par with breast-fed infants [24,39], who benefit from certain lactic acid bacteria and indigestible oligosaccharides which enhance the proliferation of probiotics [7,11]. Although a number of studies using probiotic-enriched formula were included in this review, the results by no means promote infant formula fortified with probiotic as a substitute for breast milk, as exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months is a key child survival strategy [41,42]. This review showed that probiotics improves growth in children and highlighted that these benefits were more significiant in under-nourished children and in a developing country setting while highlighting no adverse effects on children [27-29,32,33]. Given that under-nutrition is more prevalent in developing country settings [3], this review suggests that probiotics may play an important role in improving nutrition, promoting compensatory growth in low resource countries. In addition, it also argues for the idea of exploring the use of locally available and culturally acceptable fermented products as a vehicle of probiotics, by investigating the safety and acceptability of the products [40].

Conclusion and recommendations

This review found a benefit of dietary intake of probiotics in terms of weight and height gain in under-nourished children and possible benefit in terms of weight gain in well-nourished children in developing countries. It is suggested that the supplementation promotion of locally available foods with probiotics could be an effective intervention to improve growth in children, especially in developing countries. Further research is needed to investigate this benefit among well-nourished children in a developing country context especially in Africa where limited evidence is available; under-nourished children in a developed country context, as well as in older children. Future studies on probiotics should measure growth as a primary outcome to strengthen the evidence and explore the acceptabilty of the use of fermented milk products as a vehicle for probiotics.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Public Health Nutrition Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen

References

  1. World Health Organisation. Department of Health statistics and informatics. Geneva: World Health Statistics; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. Solis B, Samartin S, Gomez S, Nova E, de la Rosa B, Marcos A. Probiotics as a help in children suffering from malnutrition and diarrhoea. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002;56 Suppl 3:S57–59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, de Onis M, Ezzati M, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet. 2008;371(9608):243–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Victora CG, Adair L, Fall C, Hallal PC, Martorell R, Richter L, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: consequences for adult health and human capital. Lancet. 2008;371(9609):340–57.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Nations U. The Millenium Development Goals Report. New York: United Nations; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. De Onis M, Monteiro C, Akre J, Clugston G. The worldwide magnitude of protein-energy malnutrition: An overview from the WHO global database on child growth. Bull World Health Organ. 1993;71(6):703–12.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Food and Agricultural Organisation-World Health Organisation. Evaluation of Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in food including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria. In: Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Allen SJ, Martinez EG, Gregorio GV, Dans LF. Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:003048.Google Scholar
  9. Szajewska H, Kotowska M, Mrukowicz JZ, Armanska M, Mikolajczyk W. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in prevention of nosocomial diarrhea in infants. J Pediatr. 2001;138(3):361–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Alfaleh K, Anabrees J, Bassler D, Al-Kharfi T. Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3:005496.Google Scholar
  11. Thomas DW, Greer FR, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology. Probiotics and prebiotics in pediatrics. Pediatr. 2010;126(6):1217–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. He M, Yang Y, Han H, Men J, Bian L, Wang G. Effects of yogurt supplementation on the growth of preschool children in Beijing suburbs. Biomed Environ Sci. 2005;18(3):192–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Saran S. Use of fermented foods to combat stunting and failure to thrive: Background of the study. Nutrition. 2004;20(6):577–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wolvers D, Antoine J, Myllyluoma E, Schrezenmeir J, Szajewska H, Rijkers GT. Guidance for substantiating the evidence for beneficial effects of probiotics: Prevention and management of infections by probiotics. J Nutr. 2010;140(3):698S–712S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Scholz-Ahrens KE, Ade P, Marten B, Weber P, Timm W, Acil Y, et al. Prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics affect mineral absorption, bone mineral content, and bone structure. J Nutr. 2007;137(3):838S–46S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sazawal S, Dhingra U, Hiremath G, Sarkar A, Dhingra P, Dutta A, et al. Effects of Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 and prebiotic oligosaccharide added to milk on iron status, anemia, and growth among children 1 to 4 years old. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;51(3):341–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Olasupo NA, Schillinger U, Narbad A, Dodd H, Holzapfel WH. Occurrence of nisin Z production in Lactococcus lactis BFE 1500 isolated from wara, a traditional Nigerian cheese product. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999;53(2–3):141–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Chelule PK, Mokoena MP, Gqaleni N. Advantages of traditional lactic acid bacteria fermentation in Africa. Microb Biotechnol. 2010:1160–1167. www.formatex.info/microbiology2/1160-1167.pdf.
  19. Mensah P. Fermentation- the key to food safety assurance in Africa? Food Control. 1997;18:271–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Motarjemi Y. Impact of small scale fermentation technology on food safety in developing countries. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002;75(3):213–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Motarjemi Y, Nout MJR. Food fermentation: A safety and nutritional assessment. Bull World Health Organ. 1996;74(6):553–9.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bhutta ZA, Ahmed T, Black RE, Cousens S, Dewey K, Giugliani E, et al. What works? Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival. Lancet. 2008;371(9610):417–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Million M, Angelakis E, Paul M, Armougom F, Leibovici L, Raoult D. Comparative meta-analysis of the effect of Lactobacillus species on weight gain in humans and animals. Microb Pathog. 2012;53(2):100–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Steenhout PG, Rochat F, Hager C. The effect of bifidobacterium lactis on the growth of infants: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled studies. Ann Nutr Metab. 2009;55(4):334–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. Version 5.0.1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in Health Care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Gil-Campos M, Lopez MA, Rodriguez-Benitez MV, Romero J, Roncero I, Linares MD, et al. Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 is safe and well tolerated in infants of 1–6 months of age: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatr Pol. 2012;87(6):656–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Surono IS, Koestomo FP, Novitasari N, Zakaria FR, Yulianasari K. Novel probiotic Enterococcus faecium IS-27526 supplementation increased total salivary sIgA level and bodyweight of pre-school children: A pilot study. Anaerobe. 2011;17(6):496–500.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Firmansyah A, Gayatri P, Kadim M, Alatas S, Steenhout P, Conus N, et al. Favourable effect of growing-up milk with synbiotics and lcpufa on growth and gut microbiota in indonesian toddlers. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2009;48:E72.Google Scholar
  30. Gibson RA, Barclay D, Marshall H, Moulin J, Maire J, Makrides M. Safety of supplementing infant formula with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and Bifidobacterium lactis in term infants: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Nutr. 2009;101(11):1706–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Puccio G, Cajozzo C, Meli F, Rochat F, Grathwohl D, Steenhout P. Clinical evaluation of a new starter formula for infants containing live Bifidobacterium longum BL999 and prebiotics. Nutrition. 2007;23(1):1–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Saavedra JM, Abi-Hanna A, Moore N, Yolken RH. Long-term consumption of infant formulas containing live probiotic bacteria: tolerance and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(2):261–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Scalabrin DM, Johnston WH, Hoffman DR, P’Pool VL, Harris CL, Mitmesser SH. Growth and tolerance of healthy term infants receiving hydrolyzed infant formulas supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Clin Pediatr. 2009;48(7):734–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Ziegler EE, Jeter JM, Drulis JM, Nelson SE, Haschke F, Steenhout P, et al. Formula with reduced content of improved, partially hydrolyzed protein and probiotics: Infant growth and health. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd. 2003;151 Suppl 1:S65–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Huet F, Lachambre E, Beck L, Van Egroo LD, Sznajder M. Evaluation of a formula with low protein content and supplemented with probiotic agents after breast milk weaning. Arch Pediatr. 2006;13(10):1309–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. De Onis M, Onyango AW, Borghi E, Garza C, Yang H. Comparison of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards and the National Center for Health Statistics/WHO international growth reference: Implications for child health programmes. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(7):942–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Bryant J, Baxter L, Cave CB, Milne R. Recombinant growth hormone for idiopathic short stature in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:004440.Google Scholar
  38. Kerac M, Bunn J, Seal A, Thindwa M, Tomkins A, Sadler K, et al. Probiotics and prebiotics for severe acute malnutrition (PRONUT study): a double-blind efficacy randomised controlled trial in Malawi. Lancet. 2009;374(9684):136–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Braegger C, Chmielewska A, Decsi T, Kolacek S, Mihatsch W, Moreno L, et al. Supplementation of infant formula with probiotics and/or prebiotics: A systematic review and comment by the ESPGHAN committee on nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011;52(2):238–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sleator RD. Probiotics – a viable therapeutic alternative for enteric infections especially in the developing world. Discov Med. 2010;10(51):119–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones G, Steketee RW, Black RE, Bhutta ZA, Morris SS. How many child deaths can we prevent this year? Lancet. 2003;362(9377):65–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Edmond KM, Zandoh C, Quigley MA, Amenga-Etego S, Owusu-Agyei S, Kirkwood BR. Delayed breastfeeding initiation increases risk of neonatal mortality. Pediatrics. 2006;117(3):e380–386.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Onubi et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement