We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergic disease .
Very low- quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA .
Further trials are recommended before implementation of this practice .We found no evidence to support prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for prevention of allergic disease in infants unable to be exclusively breast fed
BACKGROUND Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants , in place of st and ard cow 's milk formula ( CMF ) .
However , it is unclear whether the clinical trial evidence supports this .
OBJECTIVES To compare effects on allergic disease when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk .
If hydrolysed formulas are effective , to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective , including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula ( EHF/PHF ) .
To determine whether infants at low or high risk of allergic disease , and whether infants receiving early short-term ( first few days after birth ) or prolonged formula feeding benefit from hydrolysed formulas .
Influence of maternal diet during lactation and use of formula feeds on development of atopic eczema in high risk infants.
Retraction On 28 October 2015 , The BMJ retracted this article , published in 1989 : Ch and ra RK , Puri S , Hamed A. Influence of maternal diet during lactation and use of formula feeds on development of atopic eczema in high risk infants . BMJ 1989;299:228–30 . The BMJ has retracted the article after receiving a copy of an inquiry into the research of R K Ch and ra , which was conducted by the Memorial University of Newfoundl and and completed in August 1995 . The university did not publish the inquiry report at the time . Nor did it notify the editors of journals that had published articles by Ch and ra that were considered in the report . The BMJ obtained a copy of the report when it came into the public domain as a result of Ch and ra taking and losing a legal action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ( CBC ) , which aired television programmes about Ch and ra in 2006 . The inquiring committee experienced great difficulty with its work , but its final conclusion was that “ scientific misconduct has been committed by Dr Ch and ra . ” It looked at three studies and found that : “ absolutely no raw data ( or files ) of any kind were exhibited ” “ the Committee can not identify anyone who did the recruiting , can not identify anyone who did or remembers a significant amount of work ” “ the coauathors had little or very likely nothing to do with the work ” “ it is unbelievable that there are essentially no hospital records to support the study in question ” “ the committee can not accept that the Carnation study was done anywhere near to completeness or with the accuracy reported in the Annals of Allergy and Journal of Clinical Nutrition , For that matter , the same can probably be said for the Mead Johnson work published in the British Medical Journal . ” When asked by The BMJ in 2015 why it had not published the report in 1995 , Memorial University of Newfoundl and said that the report “ was the product of a flawed investigation process and could not be relied upon . ” In the CBC programmes , however , a university spokesman said that the university had not acted on the report because of legal threats from Ch and ra . The university further told The BMJ : “ In the spirit of being helpful , we acknowledge that over the years serious questions have been raised about the 1989 publication , leading to much controversy . If [ The ] BMJ decides to retract the paper on the basis of evidence apart from the findings of the 1995 report , then we would underst and your decision in this regard . ” The BMJ is retracting the paper because of the 1995 report , and because of the convincing evidence given in the CBC television programmes and the court case that the work of R K Ch and ra is not to be trusted . For more information , see The BMJ 's feature article(1 ) and editorial,(2 ) published on 28 October 2015
We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergic disease .
Very low- quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA .
Further trials are recommended before implementation of this practice .We found no evidence to support prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for prevention of allergic disease in infants unable to be exclusively breast fed
BACKGROUND Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants , in place of st and ard cow 's milk formula ( CMF ) .
However , it is unclear whether the clinical trial evidence supports this .
OBJECTIVES To compare effects on allergic disease when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk .
If hydrolysed formulas are effective , to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective , including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula ( EHF/PHF ) .
To determine whether infants at low or high risk of allergic disease , and whether infants receiving early short-term ( first few days after birth ) or prolonged formula feeding benefit from hydrolysed formulas .