Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266479›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Feeding interventions for growth and development in infants with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate.

A M Glenny, L Hooper, W C Shaw, S Reilly, S Kasem, J Reid

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Bone regeneration and stem cells.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2011
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

A M GlennyCochrane Oral Health Group, MANDEC, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH. a.glenny@man.ac.uk
L Hooper
W C Shaw
S Reilly
S Kasem
J Reid
La Trobe University · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AUSmile Train · USUniversity Dental Hospital of Manchester · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCleft lip and cleft palate are common birth defects, affecting about one baby of every 700 born. Feeding these babies is an immediate concern and there is evidence of delay in growth of children with a cleft as compared to those without clefting. In an effort to combat reduced weight for height, a variety of advice and devices are recommended to aid feeding of babies with clefts.

objectivesThis review aims to assess the effects of these feeding interventions in babies with cleft lip and/or palate on growth, development and parental satisfaction. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials register (June 2001), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to May 24th 2004), EMBASE (1980 to August 7th 2002), CINAHL (1982 to August 7th 2002), PsychINFO (1967 to August 13th 2002), AMED (1985 to August 13th 2002). Attempts were made to identify both unpublished and ongoing studies. There was no restriction with regard to language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of feeding interventions for babies born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate up to the age of 6 months (from term). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for relevance independently and in duplicate. All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were data extracted and assessed for validity independently by each member of the review team. Authors were contacted for clarification or missing information whenever possible. MAIN

resultsFour RCTs with a total of 232 babies, were included in the review. Comparisons made within the RCTs were squeezable versus rigid feeding bottles (two studies), breastfeeding versus spoon-feeding (one study) and maxillary plate versus no plate (one study). No statistically significant differences were shown for any of the primary outcomes when comparing bottle types, although squeezable bottles were less likely to require modification. No statistically significant difference was shown for infants fitted with a maxillary plate compared to no plate. A statistically significant difference in weight (kg) at 6 weeks post-surgery was shown in favour of breastfeeding when compared to spoon-feeding (mean difference 0.47; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.74). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsSqueezable bottles appear easier to use than rigid feeding bottles for babies born with clefts of the lip and/or palate, however, there is no evidence of a difference in growth outcomes between the bottle types. There is weak evidence that babies should be breastfed rather than spoon-fed following surgery for cleft lip. No evidence was found to assess the use of any types of maternal advice and/or support for these babies.

Indexed as

Cleft LipCleft PalateFeeding MethodsGrowthConsumer BehaviorHumansInfantInfant, NewbornParentsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15266479
OpenAlexW4256019802

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.