Observational studies have found associations between pacifier use and shorter breastfeeding duration, while RCTs have not consistently shown a difference in breastfeeding outcomes. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that observational studies are prone to bias, including selection bias, confounding bias, and information bias. Observational studies often involve non-randomized samples and may be subject to a range of confounding variables that cannot be controlled for, such as maternal breastfeeding attitudes, maternal education, and socioeconomic status. In contrast, RCTs involve the randomization of participants, which can help to reduce bias and increase the internal validity of the study.
Another explanation for the discrepancy between observational studies and RCTs is that observational studies may be influenced by reverse causation. For example, mothers who are having difficulty breastfeeding may be more likely to use pacifiers to soothe their infants, rather than the other way around. In contrast, RCTs are less prone to this type of bias because they involve the random allocation of participants to interventions, which reduces the likelihood of reverse causation.
Were all participants who entered the study accounted for at its conclusion?
Yes, all participants who entered the study were accounted for at its conclusion. The researchers reported a 100% follow-up rate, which means that all participants who were enrolled in the study were included in the final analysis. Accounting for all study participants is important to ensure that the study results accurately reflect the study population and minimize the risk of bias.