Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objective To systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials.
Design Systematic review.
Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.
Review methods Intervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.
Results 22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range −0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger’s test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.
Conclusions The results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.
Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.
Design Systematic review.
Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.
Review methods Intervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.
Results 22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range −0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger’s test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.
Conclusions The results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.
Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.
Date Issued
2021-10-14
Date Acceptance
2021-08-25
Citation
BMJ: British Medical Journal, 2021, 375, pp.1-9
ISSN
0959-535X
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Start Page
1
End Page
9
Journal / Book Title
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Volume
375
Copyright Statement
© 2021 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license,
which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work
non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different
terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license,
which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work
non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different
terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Sponsor
Imperial Health Charity
Imperial Health Charity
Identifier
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2202
Grant Number
5129
FA1920_05
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Medicine, General & Internal
General & Internal Medicine
INFANT FORMULA
BIAS
1103 Clinical Sciences
1117 Public Health and Health Services
General & Internal Medicine
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2021-10-14