Boris 2004.

Methods	Further randomisation (4 arms) of Olsen 1992 (supplementation until birth versus supplementation until 30 days after giving birth)
Participants	44 women randomised Inclusion criteria: healthy pregnant women Exclusion criteria: not reported Setting: Aarhus, Denmark
Interventions	SUPPLEMENTATION: omega‐3 (until birth) versus omega‐3 (continuing for 30 days after giving birth) versus olive oil versus no supplementation Group 1: omega‐3 (1.3 g EPA and 0.9 g DHA per day) as 4 x 1 g gelatine capsules with Pikasol (Lube A/S, Hadsund, Denmark) fish oil (32% EPA (20:5n‐3), 23% DHA, and 2 mg tocopherol/mL), stopping at birth: n = 11 Group 2: omega‐3 (1.3 g EPA and 0.9 g DHA per day) as 4 x 1 g gelatine capsules with Pikasol (Lube A/S, Hadsund, Denmark) fish oil (32% EPA (20:5n‐3), 23% DHA, and 2 mg tocopherol/mL), stopping 30 days after giving birth: n = 12 Group 3: 4 x 1 g capsules of olive oil per day (72% oleic acid (18:1n‐9) and 12% LA (18:2n‐6)), stopping at birth: n = 8 Group 4: no supplement, stopping 30 days after giving birth: n = 5 Timing of supplementation: from 30 weeks GA until birth or 30 days after giving birth DHA + EPA dose/day: high: 900 mg DHA + 1300 mg EPA
Outcomes	Omega‐3 and lipid concentrations in breast milk
Notes	Funding: The University of Aarhus (Aarhus, Denmark); Lube A/S ((Hadsund, Denmark), supplied Pikasol fish oil and olive oil capsules. Declarations of interest: not reported No outcomes able to be used in this review.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "randomly allocated"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "randomly allocated"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Partial (one group not supplemented; timing for omega‐3 groups not able to be blinded)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	3/26 in the intervention groups and 6/18 in the control groups were lost to follow‐up (no reasons reported)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient detail reported to determine confidently
Other bias	Low risk	Groups were similar for baseline characteristics with regard to maternal age at birth, and prepregnancy weight