PEDIATRICS Vol. 83 No. 1 January 1989, pp. 149
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WIRTZ, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by SORENSON, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WIRTZ, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by SORENSON, J. R.

In Reply: Discharge Pack Study

STEPHEN J. WIRTZ PHD1, DEBORAH A. FRANK MD2, and JAMES R. SORENSON PHD3

1 Department of Psychology, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819
2 Department of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118
3 Department of Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514

We welcome the opportunity to clarify the five issues raised by Mr Gelardi. First, Mr Gelardi implies that the 18-day difference in exclusive breast-feeding duration between women receiving the commercial compared with those receiving the research discharge pack, although statistically significant, is not clinically relevant. The study only followed up women for 122 days; this difference represents 15% of the follow-up period. Because the protective effects of breast-feeding against allergens and infective agents are greatest in the first few weeks of life, we would argue that a 15% extension of the duration of exclusive breast-feeding during that period is clinically beneficial.