A commentary on 'A systematic review examining the association between body image and infant feeding methods (breastfeeding vs. bottle-feeding)'

A systematic review is a valuable and influential research method that aims to identify and synthesize all literature relevant to the research question at hand. A well-conducted systematic review benefits the scientific community by providing a summary of all the existing evidence as well as generating new hypotheses and highlighting gaps in the literature. However, when a systematic review does not adhere to the recommended guidelines, it may introduce selection bias and generate false conclusions. Here, we present a commentary on a systematic review by the scholars Morley-Hewitt and Owen titled 'A systematic review examining the association between female body image and the intention, initiation, and duration of postpartum infant feeding methods (breastfeeding vs. bottle-feeding)' that included nine peer-reviewed articles but missed at least eight other peer-reviewed articles that aligned with their study aim, and therefore introduced selection bias in the review. To complete the missing piece, we provide a short summary of these additional articles and describe how they align with this systematic review.