Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11687169›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Formula milk versus term human milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants.

W McGuire, M Y Anthony

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Donor breast milk versus infant formula for preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2007
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Optimising the provision of human milk for preterm infants.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2007
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Accelerated postnatal head growth follows preterm birth.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2006
    Article
  13. Feeding the preterm infant.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
    Review
  14. Treatment and prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis.Seminars in neonatology : SN · 2003
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

W McGuireTayside Institute of Child Health, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK, DD1 9SY. w.mcguire@dundee.ac.uk
M Y Anthony
Australian National University · AUJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBNinewells Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTerm (mature) human breast milk, compared with artificial formula milks, may provide insufficient nutrition for growth and development in preterm or low birth weight infants. However, human milk may confer advantages to infants in terms of a decreased incidence of adverse outcomes.

objectivesTo determine if formula milk compared with term human breast milk leads to improved growth and development without significant adverse effects in low birth weight or preterm infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and previous reviews including cross references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus term human milk in low birth weight or preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk, risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN

resultsSix trials, all initiated more than 20 years ago, fulfilled the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Four small trials compared feeding with standard calorie formula milk versus unfortified term human milk. Two trials compared feeding with calorie-enriched formula milk versus unfortified term human milk. No trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus nutrient-fortified term human milk were found. Only one trial reported longer term follow up of growth and development. In preterm and low birth weight infants, enteral feeding with formula milk compared with unfortified term human milk resulted in a greater rate of growth in the short term. We did not find a statistically significant difference in the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, but this was evaluated as a pre-defined outcome in only one trial. The single trial that evaluated longer-term outcomes did not find evidence of an effect on longer-term growth and neurodevelopment. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsIn preterm and low birth weight infants, feeding with formula milk, compared with unfortified term human milk, leads to a greater rate of growth in the short term. The limited data available do not allow definite conclusions on whether adverse outcomes, including necrotising enterocolitis, are increased in infants who receive formula milk compared with term human milk. There are no data from randomised trials on the comparison of feeding with formula milk versus nutrient-fortified breast milk. This limits the implications for practice of this review as nutrient fortification of breast milk is now a common practice in neonatal care. Future trials may compare growth, development and adverse outcomes in infants who receive adapted "preterm" formula milks versus nutrient-fortified human breast milk.

Indexed as

Infant FoodInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, PrematureMilk, HumanHumansInfant, NewbornInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID11687169
OpenAlexW1696582806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.