ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2007
A survey of neonatal nutrition policies and practices in the UK and Eire.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enteral nutrition of preterm infants on the Maltese islands: are we doing it right?European journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Article
- Factors affecting the neonatal intensive care unit stay duration in very low birth weight premature infants.Journal of caring sciences · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal nutrition is one of the fundamental components for infants to reach their full growth and neurodevelopmental potential. Best practice is facilitated by a contemporaneous, multidisciplinary, evidence-based nutrition policy. Such evidence has recently been reviewed. We have assessed: the prevalence of nutrition policies in neonatal units in the UK and Eire; their application to hypothetical cases; the availability of dietetic input; and whether any differences existed between non-regional and regional units. A standardized questionnaire was devised by a multidisciplinary group and posted to all 255 neonatal units in the UK and Eire in 2002. Replies from 67 neonatal units were received: 48 out of 233 non-regional and 19 out of 22 regional units. A feeding policy was present in 33 units, and regular access to dietitians occurred in 37 units. For a hypothetical infant less than 28 weeks' gestation, enteral feeds would be commenced at 0-2 days in 81% of non-regional and 94% of regional units (P = ns), and be continuous in 11% of non-regional and 32% of regional units, and bolus feeding in 89% of non-regional and 68% of regional units (P = ns). Routine fortification of breastmilk would occur more frequently in non-regional units (96%) than in regional units (79%) (P = 0.050). Vitamin and iron supplements would be given to infants receiving postdischarge or high-energy milks in 68% of non-regional units and in 79% of regional units (P = ns). Calorie counts (63% regional vs. 8% non-regional, P < 0.001), and daily weights (68% regional vs. 33% non-regional, P = 0.014), were used more frequently in regional units. Many units surveyed did not have a nutrition policy. Many infants receive unnecessary additional vitamins and supplements. Practice is variable throughout the country, but we found no evidence of major differences between regional and non-regional units, apart from their monitoring of growth and rates of breastmilk fortifier usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.