SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03402789 (Pilot Study to Evaluate Docosahexaenoic Acid as Treatment for Residual Amblyopia), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Pilot Study to Evaluate Docosahexaenoic Acid as Treatment for Residual Amblyopia
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Long-chain PUFA supplementation in rural African infants: a randomized controlled trial of effects on gut integrity, growth, and cognitive development.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2013Trial
- Perinatal Docosahexaenoic Acid Supplementation Improves Cognition and Alters Brain Functional Organization in Piglets.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Estimation of daily intake of polychlorinated biphenyls not similar to dioxins (NDL-PCB) from fish consumption in Spain in different population groups.Public health nutrition · 2018Article
- Dietary Docosahexaenoic Acid and Arachidonic Acid in Early Life: What Is the Best Evidence for Policymakers?Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2018Review
- Breastfeeding Duration and Adolescent Educational Outcomes: Longitudinal Evidence From India.Food and nutrition bulletin · 2017Article
- The Role of Nutrition in Brain Development: The Golden Opportunity of the "First 1000 Days".The Journal of pediatrics · 2016Article
- The Essentiality of Arachidonic Acid in Infant Development.Nutrients · 2016Review
- Does docosahexaenoic acid supplementation in term infants enhance neurocognitive functioning in infancy?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013Review
- The empiric use of palm kernel oil in neonatal skin care: justifiable or not?Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2011Review
- Relationship between long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids at birth and motor function at 7 years of age.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2009Article
- Article
- Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in childhood developmental and psychiatric disorders.Lipids · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe n-3 and n-6 fatty acids linolenic acid and linoleic acid are precursors of the n-3 and n-6 longchain fatty acids (LCPUFA). Infant formula has historically only contained the precursor fatty acids. Controversy exists over whether LCPUFA are also essential nutrients in infancy. Over the last few years some manufacturers have added LCPUFA to formulae and marketed them as providing an advantage for the development of term infants.
objectivesThe aim of this review is to assess whether supplementation of formula with LCPUFA is safe and of benefit to term infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by MEDLINE, checking reference lists of articles and conference proceedings, and by personal communication. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials of formula supplemented with LCPUFA and with clinical endpoints were reviewed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Ten randomised studies were identified. One of these studies was excluded due to supplementation commencing after three weeks of age. Eight of the nine included trials were assessed to be of good quality. There was insufficient information available to assess the quality of the other included trial. MAIN
resultsVisual acuity was assessed by visual evoked potentials (VEP) at 4 and 7-8 months in the studies of Makrides et al (1995 & 1996). The supplemented infants had an improved rate of visual maturation at both time points in the first study, but no difference was found between the groups at the same time points in the second study. VEP acuity was also assessed in the study of Austed et al (1997) and no effect of supplementation was found at any time point over the first year. This contrasts with the study of Birch et al (1998) where VEP acuity was better in the supplemented group compared with the control group at 6 weeks, 4 and 12 months but not at 6 months. Visual acuity was assessed by Teller acuity cards in the study of Carlson et al (1996), Clausen et al (1996), Austed et al (1997) and Birch et al (1998). Supplementation had no effect on visual acuity over the first year of life except at one of five time points in the study of Carlson et al (1996). Intellectual development was measured in seven studies. The two largest studies showed no effect of supplementation on development, either at 18 months (Lucas et al 1999) or at one and three years (Janowsky et al 1995, Scott et al 1997). The next largest study reported better developmental scores at 18 months in the supplemented group (Birch et al 2000) but when combined with data of Lucas et al, no significant benefit is shown. Makrides et al (1995 & 1996) also showed no benefit to development with supplementation over the first two years of life. Agostini et al 1995 reported a benefit in development at 4 months of age with supplementation but when the infants were followed up with the same test at 1 and 2 years, no difference between groups was found (Agostini et al 1997). The Portland study showed no effect of supplementation on language development at one and three years (Janowsky et al 1995, Scott et al 1997). Clausen et al (1996) reported better novelty preference measured by Fagan Infant test at nine months in supplemented infants compared with controls. Willatts et al (1998) reported better problem solving at 10 months with supplementation. Growth was measured in the studies of Makrides et al (1995 & 1996), Austed et al (1997), Willatts et al 1998, Lucas et al 1999 and Birch et al 2000. LCPUFA supplementation did not influence growth in any of these studies. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsAt present there is little evidence from randomised trials of LCPUFA supplementation to support the hypothesis that LCPUFA supplementation confers a benefit for visual or general development of term infants. Minor effects on VEP acuity have been suggested but appear unlikely when all studies are reviewed. A beneficial effect on information processing is possible but larger studies over longer periods are required to conclude that LCPUFA supplementation provides a benefit when compared with standard formula. Data from randomised trials do not suggest that LCPUFA supplements influence the growth of term infants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11687076What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.